• 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!

Homeowner shoots and kills home invader

I am so glad that the homeowner is safe.

And I am so pleased that a bad individual will no longer be able to ever again hurt anyone else.


Violent criminals in this country are seldom punished sufficiently, so good people have no choice but to have weapons, especially in certain dangerous states.
 
TheParser said:
Violent criminals in this country are seldom punished sufficiently, so good people have no choice but to have weapons, especially in certain dangerous states.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're saying people need guns to punish criminals. Is that what you meant?
 
Stealers Wheel said:
It sounds like you're saying people need guns to punish criminals. Is that what you meant?
Click to expand...

I'm not the poster you responded to, but I see nothing wrong when a victim metes out the appropriate punishment, as was the case here. The victim did society a favor by killing one of the thugs.
 
aociswundumho said:
The inaccurate reporting of events is a journalistic standard?
Click to expand...

It is accurate. They have to say it as "allegedly" until found guilty in a court of law so as to not incur a liability for their organization for prejudging a criminal case. If they wrote it as guilty the way you want them to and the guy is somehow found not guilty, he can then turn around and sue the paper for saying he was guilty before the trial.
 
Does anyone else find it more disturbing than "suspected burglar" being interesting, that they posted the exact address, and basically gave directions to the home? What's up with that? I hope it ends well.
 
poweRob said:
It is accurate. They have to say it as "allegedly" until found guilty in a court of law so as to not incur a liability for their organization for prejudging a criminal case. If they wrote it as guilty the way you want them to and the guy is somehow found not guilty, he can then turn around and sue the paper for saying he was guilty before the trial.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I agree with everything you wrote here but that's not what I meant. I was referring to using burglar instead of home invader.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
It sounds like you're saying people need guns to punish criminals. Is that what you meant?
Click to expand...

People need guns to defend themselves against home invasions. Or are you suggesting that guns make thieves work places too dangerous?
 
Stealers Wheel said:
It sounds like you're saying people need guns to punish criminals. Is that what you meant?
Click to expand...

It is for self defense. People who live in the sticks don't have police presence or response like people in more urban areas.
 
aociswundumho said:
The inaccurate reporting of events is a journalistic standard?
Click to expand...

It's not inaccurate. What evidence establishes as fact the two were burglars or masked home invaders? There's the word of the homeowner about what happened, but not much else at least in the story we've seen. There's been no trial, no real investigation, they haven't apprehended the other suspect who might dispute that account. The police believe the homeowner, the evidence might strongly suggest that his story is true, but that doesn't establish something as fact.

I wouldn't comment, but the attack on the legitimacy of the press is actually dangerous and here it's baseless, wrong headed.
 
Charges will be forthcoming I can almost guarantee it. And no one here will update this story.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
It sounds like you're saying people need guns to punish criminals. Is that what you meant?
Click to expand...

In this case it had nothing to do with punishment. One suspect actually shot the homeowner, who luckily survived and returned fire.
It was about returning fire - - to prevent BEING KILLED by the suspect.

If you're not a gun owner, and you're not keen on guns at all, I can respect that.
But in return, you need to respect the fact that there are occasions WHERE a gun owner really doesn't have much choice but to return fire.
If you have been shot, it's awfully difficult sometimes to retreat.
But more importantly, one should never have to retreat in their own home or their own business.
It is not only unreasonable, it's even more dangerous to you, the home or business owner, than returning fire, because people do get killed even while they are attempting to retreat.
Why? Simple...the same reason a homeowner with a gun says "Don't move, or I'll shoot".
A criminal oftentimes says the same exact thing..."Don't move, or I'll shoot.", and if you attempt to retreat, you're moving, and you will be shot.
But all in all, demanding that a home or business owner retreat is just plain unreasonable.

Homeowners and business owners who are being subjected to an attack are not thinking about punishing anybody, they're thinking about staying alive.
To put it simply, if it comes down to "him or me", I am voting "ME" every single time, even if it means "HIM" has to die for being stupid enough to break into my home or business.
If I could use a non-lethal magical stopping ray device that would incapacitate a person instantly from a distance, I would choose that instead.
Such a magical invention does not exist.
Poor substitutes which cannot guarantee results exist.
Sorry, not good enough.

I am not a gun nut with an extensive collection of firearms. I am not a member of the NRA or any other similar group, I don't subscribe to Guns and Ammo and I don't hang out in gun enthusiast forums. But I am a liberal gun owner. I have two main guns, a Makarov and a Taurus, both pistols, and I have a very old and decrepit (neglected) Winchester hunting rifle which is in need of a lot of TLC because it hasn't even been unpacked in almost thirty years and I wouldn't trust it in its present condition without a going-over by a gunsmith.

To me, they are APPLIANCES, much like an alarm system or a deadbolt lock.
But unlike deadbolt locks and alarm systems, I can trust these appliances to work every single time, and work well.
And I hope I never have to find out how well they do work, but I will not hesitate at the moment of truth.
And that's not from any desire to "punish" anybody, it's from simple self-preservation instinct, for me and my loved ones.
 
Lovebug said:
It is for self defense. People who live in the sticks don't have police presence or response like people in more urban areas.
Click to expand...

Oh please, people in urban areas sometimes have an equally long wait. Different reasons, but the wait is oftentimes just as long.
The only difference is, in a rural area the factor is often simple distance. In an urban area it could be one or more reasons, with "not enough cops" sometimes being the major factor.

"Help is minutes away when seconds count"
 
aociswundumho said:
The inaccurate reporting of events is a journalistic standard?
Click to expand...

Media can be sued for slander or libel.
You really want to know who is responsible for the use of "suspected"?

LAWYERS

Lawyers made the wise decision to tell journalists to insert "suspected" and "suspect" in stories of this nature to prevent litigation.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
It sounds like you're saying people need guns to punish criminals. Is that what you meant?
Click to expand...

It seems obvious that he meant that the criminal got what he deserved.

Contrary to the widely-held notion, it's not law enforcement's job to protect what you worked to own. Their job is to show up later and fill out a report and tell you that they probably won't find your stolen goods.

I see it like combat. The best thing any soldier can do when he has an enemy in his sights is to pull the trigger, rather than to take him alive so that lawyers can work the system to the enemy's advantage.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh please, people in urban areas sometimes have an equally long wait. Different reasons, but the wait is oftentimes just as long.
The only difference is, in a rural area the factor is often simple distance. In an urban area it could be one or more reasons, with "not enough cops" sometimes being the major factor.

"Help is minutes away when seconds count"
Click to expand...

We called one night, got an answering machine.
 
Middle_Ground said:
Charges will be forthcoming I can almost guarantee it. And no one here will update this story.
Click to expand...

How can you guarantee it when we have plenty of examples where even "stand your own ground" cases against unarmed people have allowed shooters to walk free? You would be better off gambling on the fact that this homeowner will walk because he was protecting his family from a home invader.

THIS, by the way, is what the gun is mostly for.
 
Middle_Ground said:
Charges will be forthcoming I can almost guarantee it. And no one here will update this story.
Click to expand...

I kinda doubt it.
Even in California, I STILL kinda doubt the homeowner would face charges.
The evidence is probably too clear cut to infer anything other than a homeowner shooting in self defense, and as tough as our gun laws are out here, the Castle Doctrine is pretty strong.
Furthermore, there are judicial rulings which sets a precedent in cases where a homeowner or business owner shoots in self defense, where judges instruct juries to find just cause in those cases.

I personally witnessed a lot of cases like this when I was a news cameraman in the 1980's/90's and I've seen enough news stories in recent years, and in cases like this, the outcome is almost always that the judicial system works more often than not to protect the home or business owner from harm in light of the facts in the case, i.e. an armed criminal threatening the life and safety of the home or business owner.

California is unreasonable where concealed carry is concerned, but when it boils down to protecting your home or business on premises, it is doubtful you will be charged with a crime for shooting an armed criminal in self defense.
It has not happened often enough for me to remember any such story in the news. And believe me, as a California gun owner, I definitely would take notice of such a story if it happened.
I'd have to say that such a thing is pretty rare, even in California, to say nothing of North Carolina.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom