Home invasion gone bad...for the bad guys

No, you just want to chant that they're evil. Go hug a fucking tree, then. There are plenty of instances where I can show they're useful. I pointed to one law, then pointed to a philosopher.

Your arguement has nothing of substance.

 

I want the blood...

 

The lady did the right thing

 

How the hell can a gun be evil? It's an inanimate object.

Killing people with other things and being happy about it is just as dickish.

Killing people is at best an extremely unfortunate neccesity, it is not cause for celebration or satisfaction unless you're an entirely abysmal excuse for a human being.

 

Did I say I'd enjoy it? No. I said that given a situation where I see someone about to be injured or killed, I would be completely willing to defend them using lethal force. Actually, two things I just said are wrong: I might not be totally willing, because I'm not the best shot - which is why I go to the range. And I would be happy, if I was successful - I would have potentially saved someone's life. The agressor/attacker lost my sympathy when they decided to go after someone.

 

How lovely for you.

 

go hug a tree chris

 

Go troll a thread chris

 

I think he did, already.

 

she had a shotgun, if anything goes wrong, she blasts his feet to pulp

she never even tried to talk to him, she did not before she called 911 because then she knew too little from the trespasser

im not saying prosecute her, because as stated, by the law she did what she can do without punishment, even if i would not agree to such laws i am not gonna state that i know what is best for american laws

i do think that if she starts crying about killing someone then why did she not first try other options? the man was obviously confused, asking about a certain "pat" person and being drunk... this does not mean the man is incapable of reasoning, even if its "Im sorry but pat does not live here"

 

American law takes a dim view of shooting people without killing them.

The reasoning goes that if you have to shoot someone it should be life or death, and therefore shooting without the need to immediately kill the person is excessive force.

It's somewhat backwards I know but there you have it.

 

I'm sorry but Chris is totally right. Why on earth would you celebrate someone killing another person? You don't know why he was burgling her, people get into desperate situations. But EITHER WAY, regardless of what the law said, she could have knee-capped him, let the (however backwards, useless, uncivilised and under-developed) american law system take care of him.

But no, instead, she just straight up kills him, and gets celebrated for it. He was virtually unarmed in comparison with her.

 

I'm tired of having this argument with blind people. You americanos want to self-perpetuate the cycle of violence, then fine, go ahead. Just stop trying to pretend you even know where the line of reason is.

 

Ok, first off, this is probably the first thing with Chris that I agree on. We really shouldn't celebrate that this man was killed.

Also, I don't see how some people can just say "Could she have just asked him to leave?"

That's fucking stupid. The man was violent, and drunk. She already yell at him that she had a gun, and was on the phone with police. If he still kept trying to break in, then he obviously didn't care about any amount of diplomacy. He was a convicted criminal on a drunken rampage, what the fuck was she supposed to do?

She's also obviously showing remorse for her actions. If you listened to the entire thing, you would hear her crying how sorry she was.


I want to point out a few things to people here.

1. Small woman Vs. Big drunken man with a criminal record.

2. Big man still kept trying to come into the house AFTER she said she had a gun and was on the phone with police.

3. We learned the man had a criminal record after the fact, so he is a violent person

So, let me once again rephrase this. A drunk violent man breaks into this woman's house, despite her saying she has a gun and is on the phone with police. See, where I'm from this is like night and day. We are taught that self defense is of the highest priority. Specific to this situation, there was no "wounding shot" there was no "she could have defended herself with a knife" bullshit. When all you have is a 16 gauge shotgun, you're not going to be shooting to wound, especially a man in a drunken rage.

I really don't know how I'm going to make this any clearer for you idiots.

Anyways, it's sad this man died, but he was violent, drunk, and stupid.

Good thing that state has the "hold your ground" law that states a person can defend their home with lethal force in case of an intruder. I don't want to see an old woman go to jail just because she didn't want to get raped.

 

You shoot him in the leg, it doesn't matter if you blow it off. You can stop that kind of bleeding at home. It doesn't matter what the weapon is, provided it isn't incendiary or explosive, you can wound shot. No exceptions (albeit a quadruple amputee could be a problem).

 

i care to disagree

 

I watched band of brothers and one time someone got shot in the leg and he died.

 

But they get them via legal venues (think gun shows and straw purchases). This is the big problem with our system IMO.

 

Actually shooting someone in the leg is difficult, because it's hard to aim a gun anyway, and also quite likely to be lethal as a major artery runs through either leg, which you're almost certain to hit with a shotgun.

Contrary to cinematic popularity bullets don't magically kill people, what they do is puncture major organs or simply blood vessels and cause them to bleed to death, shotguns fire shot which is essentially like stabbing someone many times with very thin knives, or possibly just hitting them with a really big hammer depending on how you look at it.

You can't really avoid killing people with a shotgun unless you're firing rubber duckies.