That's fine I guess.

Why isn't this huge ******* red yet'

He was assaulting a child m8

edit: Reading the article quote, it didn't seem too clear who the kid was, but yeah the intruder was a man that was shot and killed as well. And yeah that does seem like a more ecstatic circumstance

My understanding of the article was the home dweller non-fatally shot the kid. The cop entered after the resident called and shot the resident dead.

The post I was responding to said that it'd been best to shoot the kid first, make sure he's dead, then call the cops with the situation subsiding.

Surely someone has to make this an 'In' gif

Wow...you're even worse in the misc section...

If I ever have to defend myself with a gun. I seriously have thought about tossing the gun a good distance and then stripping butt naked before the police arrive. But, they will probably still shoot me and say " He was reaching for something".

The trickiest situation I can think of is coming across a police officer who needs help. Whether he is already down or fighting a suspect. I tell myself I wouldn't intervene as I'll probably get beaten or killed by other responding officers' who think I'm the suspect.

Officers' in general have become to quick to shoot in the US.

How can you blame the cops though. If they don't kill someone they can get fired. The 2016 case of Officer Stephen Mader, who found a distraught suspect holding a gun while responding to a domestic violence call. He assessed the situation and determined that the suspect was not a threat and was attempting suicide by cop. Two other officers' arrived and killed the suspect. Stephen Mader was fired for not neutralizing the threat and for placing the other two responding officers' lives in danger.

Read thread title and came in expecting to read that the state sent home owner to jail for defending himself. Would like to see the police cam footage

Thankfully I live in a state that has no bullchit limitations...if someone breaks into my home, the assumption is they very well could be there to commit serious harm against myself and occupants so I'm within my right to stop that threat anyway necessary without any repercussions. Break into my house while I'm home and it's very likely you'll be leaving in a body bag.

Pretty sad man. I wonder if the cop gets off.

Tough guy? So protecting your home is now a “tough guy” thing...I guess I’d better sell my guns and leave my doors unlocked then lol

Sounds like a tragic set of circumstances to me. Cops are responding to a break in where the suspect is on scene. As they pull up they hear gun shots. Who is being shot? Who is armed? Are the family inside being killed? Those are the things running through their heads. Then they run into the armed man who they have no idea is the homeowner. He is in shock having just shot someone and not responding to verbal commands. What would you do?

Ideally the homeowner would have had time to down weapon and sit down to await police.

Its all conjecture until bodycam or the report is released. One thing is for sure, some miscers acting like the cops would have been high fiving eachother - I guarantee you they would not be. Tragic.

Your right it is all conjecture. It is not known if the homeowner received any verbal orders from Law Enforcement before shooting the homeowner. It is also not known if the the police identified themselves before entering the residence. And not high-fiving is also conjecture, I'll wait for the body-cam footage. I would not be surprised to see one or two high fives.

In such a rapid developing situation. If I was a police officer, I would not identify myself upon entering as shots were just fired moments earlier. I would not give away my position until I had the drop on someone' (gun pointed center mass). This typo of scenario could go completely wrong if the suspect or homeowner sees me first, if it's the homeowner who sees me he may think i'm another intruder as I never identified myself.

don't get robbed

/thread

Nice to see someone making sense around here.

At least you can attempt to defend yourself in most U.S states.

In Canada, you must rear glute spread and open up your angus nice and wide for intruders. Let them creampie in the hole, and then suck their dinks until the cops show up.

If you don't abide by these laws then you're a racist xenophobe.

Slamming a persons head onto concrete isn't possibly deadly?

Are you delusional?

Both trayvon and zimmerman are idiots. When 2 jackasses collide. But dont claim for a second what he was doing wasn't possibly deadly force.

Dude you are a ****ing idiot. Someone that has such little dis-regard to someones home and/or family (regardless of the time of day) to break in with an obviously unlawful and non-humanely empathetic reason, deserves to die. I don't give a fuk what you say. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, and you have a firearm, you are going to shoot that piece of chit.

That seems to be the consensus around here. I wasn't necessarily trying to get into an argument about that, but there's more than a plethora of people that would disagree that the person deserves to die.

Okay. So the police failed to understand the situation and killed the home owner.

2nd degree murder sounds like a reasonable charge.

That read like a fukkin South Park episode.



What a senseless tragedy.

if it was then he would be dead and not Trayvon, Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to get his weapon and use it cause he would be incapacitated, because it wasn't a deadly move.

Seems the argument on here again is whether someone deserves to die for breaking into a home and whether they are a threat to the residents. Seems we must first agree on the rights of the person breaking in, as in does he have the right to kill the home owner if the owner brandishes a weapon to kill him. So a guy breaks into a home and starts to steal stuff, the resident gets their gun and goes intruder hunting, if the intruder is a quicker draw or uses a knife against the home owner is he a murderer?

I don't think unlawful or non humanely as you put it is a good reason to shoot someone.....according to the law.

Well then you would be WRONG.. According to the law.

Yeah, how dare he call the cops like a law abiding citizen and perhaps wanting some backup.

There is a plethora of people who think men should be able to compete in female competitions. What's your point? No-one is saying a home owner is going for the kill every time, but they sure as not are expecting to be so calm and collected to try minimize fatal wounds or consider the intruders well-being first. They will just shoot, and the result is whatever it is. Their actions are a part of a reaction that would never occur during their law abiding life until someone who decides to break the law forces their hand. Thus it's not an eye for an eye situation, that whole concept is flawed anyhow.

One of the worst crimes to commit to make someone fear for their own or their close ones lives is to break into their one place of sanctuary. Everyone, every day are outside facing possible accidents, others crimes, all out of their control, but when they arrive home, that is supposed to be where they feel the most safe, where they can relax. Now imagine at night hearing someone break in? You can't assume they are not armed or not carrying a lethal weapon. You can't assume they are only there to rob goods and have no intent to harm or kill you. Because that assumption can leave you or someone else seriously injured or dead, YOUR life comes first, YOUR life is the one that's being thrown into jeopardy.

So sure, there maybe be some extraneous circumstance where the intruder just wants a VCR, has no intent to do anything else and ideally doesn't deserve to have 10 round in their head, to be tortured once subdued etc however you can't expect every owner to be going through these moral dilemmas as their hearts are racing and an unknown person is in their house. Give me a break, sure criminals deserve BASELINE human rights, that is it, law-abiding citizens deserve protection and leniency, not the other way around. You don't want a situation where laws are so accommodating for someone doing the wrong thing that an innocent person starts to second guess their judgement in fear of repercussions and in that moment of hesitancy are put in danger.

At the end of the day, if there is a BLATANT, and I mean very blatant use of excessive force and some form of unnecessary torture then yes I can agree with you that the owner has gone too far, but if there is anything that's even close to 50/50, why the fk would you give the leniency to the person who initiated the crime? The answer is you don't. Don't break into other people's homes, don't mug people, don't be a piece of sh*t criminal and you won't have a problem.

I will read this post with consideration tomorrow, but most anybody who's called me out or negged me in this thread has distinctly said that they're going to shoot liberally with 100% intention to kill the person once they are on their property. edit: and also I've not once in this thread advocated against gun defense.

And I wasn't appealing to a populous. But what I'm talking about is hardly unfounded.

Makes sense, clearly you didn't follow the trial and evidence at all and are making wild assumptions with absolutely no evidence to support your claim. Good job.

Your ability to lump dissimilar situations together is strikingly stupid. Life is not so cut and dry and a variety of variables exist ay mate?