# Teen fatally shot when he mistakenly went into wrong house



## Vagabond (Mar 20, 2013)

> A 16-year-old who lived in Loudoun County, Va., was shot and killed when he accidentally entered the wrong house.
> Caleb Gordley, a popular athlete who had been living in a brick house with his parents and sister for about a year, sneaked out of his house to go to a party with friends after he'd been grounded for not cleaning his room.
> When he returned around 2 a.m. he slipped into the house he thought was his. Friends said he had been drinking and mistook his neighbor’s similar house two doors down for his own and climbed in through the back window.
> When the burglar alarm sounded, the homeowner treated Caleb as an intruder, and shot and killed him.



Does the shooter have no blame in these cases?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/teen-fatally-shot-mistakenly-walked-wrong-house-163650001.html

*ALTERNATE LINK*


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Mar 20, 2013)

A guy sneaking in this late at night I think it's justifiable. That said, I think the killer should take responsibility of his actions and pay some REALLY hefty fine at least. This will make sure that you just don't go shooting people unless you really think your life is threatened.


----------



## Owl (Mar 20, 2013)

I feel sorry for the victim but at the same time the homeowner had to do something. I mean yeah, the kid might've been innocent but what if it was a different case? Like actual burglars breaking into his house.


----------



## Klauser (Mar 20, 2013)

A drunkard at night should make plenty of noises.A normal reaction would be to turn on the lights and see what the fuck is going on.At least 100% of the people here would do this...
In America though...Either you're feeling terribly insecure or...guns control...


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Fining or placing blame on a citizan for defending his home is unacceptable.  It is the right of the home owner to defend their property and sadly mistakes are made.  I don't think the homeowner made a mistake, he had very little time to react with little information on hand, it's either risk letting the intruder know where you're located, or luckily find out it's a drunk teen in the wrong house.  But anyone coming in at 2a.m. is usually an intruder and I would take my chances shooting into the moving figure. 

To think of punishing this person for defending his home is astonishing to me, had it been a criminal people would pat him on the back and wouldn't have though twice if he had confirmed it was an intruder, but since it was a drunk teen he's under scrutiny.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, either everyone is under scrutiny or no one is. 

He did what he needed to, and I wont blame him for what happen, but I will blame the irresponsible teenager for sneaking out and drinking.  Any home invasion story, good or bad, still confirms why I keep a pistol next to my bed.


----------



## TenshiNeko (Mar 20, 2013)

It's tragic, but it's the kid's own stupid fault. If some drunk comes climbing in your back window at 2am, he's just asking to get shot. Even if he got the right house, he could've been shot by his own family by doing that.


It wouldn't be a smart idea to turn on the lights and ask a guy breaking in what he's doing.  Interrupting a burglar is a good way to get yourself killed, or at least seriously injured. Happens all the time. Not all homeowners have guns, but there's a good chance the guy breaking in has a weapon on him. Some creeps even go in with the intention of harming the people there. I don't blame the neighbor for shooting



Didn't the teen have a key to his own house? Seems like it would be easier to unlock your door and try to slip in quietly, rather than to climb in a window. Jeeez, people get so stupid when they're drunk


----------



## Darth (Mar 20, 2013)

the homeowner's a fucking retard. smh 

Feel bad for that kid's familly. Hope they sue the fuck out of that guy. he killed their kid on accident. 

i mean wow. wtf.


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

Vagabond said:


> Does the shooter have no blame in these cases?



Of course he does. Defending your home is one thing, but he could've at least made sure to turn on the lights and see what the hell was happening. The intruder may not have been a burglar, which he wasn't.



Owl said:


> I feel sorry for the victim but at the same time the homeowner had to do something. I mean yeah, the kid might've been innocent but what if it was a different case? Like actual burglars breaking into his house.



Classic NF response. Stay classy.

But seriously, are people actually saying the homeowner had every right to kill the kid? It's overboard, and "defending" your home doesn't necessitate a pre-emptive *lethal* attack. The boy was innocent and made an honest mistake, drunk or not. No one deserves to die for that.


----------



## Stannis (Mar 20, 2013)

wrong neighborhood..


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Mar 20, 2013)

I think this was an accident guys. What you guys think?  No more guns? 

Too bad he didn't get beaten/killed with a bat instead.


----------



## HaxHax (Mar 20, 2013)

Allowing people to kill for something as simple as trespassing is laughable at best.

Should be locked away. But USA USA USA.


----------



## GrandLordAtos (Mar 20, 2013)

Classic 'Murica. Shoot first, ask questions later, all in the name of "just in case", "freedom", and so-on-so-forth.


----------



## Wolfarus (Mar 20, 2013)

Im a little of column a and a little of column b on this.

On one hand, the home owner has every right to defend his property and his loved ones from somebody who crawls thru the window at night. In that situation, you're thinking that he's a burglar (or worse) and your flight/fight reaction is going to kick in. 

But on the other, he SHOULD have made some attempt to turn on the lights or attempt some kind of id'ing before he pulled the trigger. UNLESS circumstances were such that he wasnt near the light switch, and the kid made some sudden moves towards him. In which case, i wouldnt put any blame on him whatsoever.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Mar 20, 2013)

A drunk teenage retard got shot. The world won't miss him.


----------



## Golden Circle (Mar 20, 2013)

There's a term for that, it's called . i.e. killing someone without motive/premeditation.

Can land you in jail in most areas.


----------



## Wolfarus (Mar 20, 2013)

Rainbow Dash said:


> There's a term for that, it's called . i.e. killing someone without motive/premeditation.
> 
> Can land you in jail in most areas.



And in most cases (as far as i know) manslaughter charges are brought against somebody who kills in a fight, ect. This was a home invasion, and unless its proven that he knew it was the neihbor's kid before he pulled the trigger, i doubt he'll be charged with anything.


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

av said:


> I would feel like a terrible father for letting my grown-ass son get completely wasted.



No remorse or hard feelings toward the one who killed your son? It certainly is wrong to get drunk, but it's not even close to being as bad as killing someone. Getting drunk and making an honest mistake doesn't mean he "lost the privilege to live." That's retarded.

But it's prolly not appropriate to ask you if you don't have any kids.



av said:


> Because people who break in tend to have weapons. There are plenty of situations where three people broke in, held up a family at gunpoint, tied them up, raped the wife and the daughter, and then burned the house with the family tied up in the basement. Story was told by another kid they forgot upstairs who managed to run outside or something.



Just because they tend to doesn't mean EVERYONE who breaks in has a weapon.


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

av said:


> Nobody is talking about his "privilege to live" - people who crash and die because they are drunk don't "lose their privilege" - they die because that's what can happen. You are talking like the guy at home was like "Awww sheeit, this kid's wasted, time to waste him for his drinking habit, sheeeit."



The way you said it made it come off as tho if your son got drunk and broke into someone else's house by mistake means it's only to be expected that he would die, perhaps even deserved it. This isn't akin to a car crash where it was his own drunkenness that caused an accident. The homeowner could've easily chosen to defend himself by other means. The kid's death wasn't caused by his inattentiveness.



av said:


> The question is where you set the risk line. At what point is verification bravery. At what point is it expected? At what point is it acceptable?
> 
> To me, personally, the physical condition and the marksmanship of the home owner play a role. Was he in such shape that he could easily take a grown man? How big was the teen, height, weight?
> 
> Also, keep in mind that a lot of people who shoot to disable in the US DO get sued and lose.



None of this excuses killing another person. Before getting trigger happy about the perceived threat, he should've made an attempt at id'ing the kid. Judging by the article it doesn't sound like the kid broke into the guy's room in his sleep. Turning on the light wasn't impossible.


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

av said:


> 1. If he wasn't drunk of his ass, this would have never happened. So yes, alcohol is a contributing factor.
> 2. "Could have easily chosen to defend himself by other means" - this, here, is the root of the debate.



Sure, I understand being drunk doesn't justify people's behavior. It's their responsibility for not avoiding the drink. But how is getting drunk the cause of him getting shot? He wasn't the one who shot himself, and the homeowner isn't like a car that lost control. The homeowner HAD control of his own actions. Drunk or not, the "intruder" has no control over the actions of others. He is not to blame for that.



av said:


> There is no "kid" here - there is a 6 ft tall, 165 pound man. Again, that's the thing, it IS an excuse, if it is safe to assume that the person breaking in was armed. Why? You turn on the light with gun in hand, they light you the fuck up, if armed. It HAS happened before.



It doesn't mean it will happen every single time. Just because it has happened before doesn't mean every intruder is necessarily armed and out to kill you. The homeowner had no need to be trigger happy. 



av said:


> Honestly, I am completely with you guys - shooting should be an absolute last resort. I already said that a lot of gun owners are trigger-happy as fuck. However, it's also naive to yell "sue his ass, he is a murderer" - you don't know what happened.



Then why make it sound like the guy had a right to take another's life if it's meant to be an absolute last resort?


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

av said:


> You legitimately think someone is arguing that him being drunk caused someone else to shoot, somehow beyond the fact that he was where he shouldn't be and couldn't react to warnings properly? If not, drop the theatrics.



Sorry, but you just made it sound that way. Especially when you compared this to a car crash when there's in fact no comparison.



av said:


> The questions is whether the shooter as it fault. From the shooter's perspective, there was a 6 foot tall, 165 lb man breaking into his house at night.



Still no reason to kill him. He's a big man, but id'ing him would've enabled him to figure out there was no criminal intent.



av said:


> Again, nobody is arguing that it happens every single time. The point here is this - someone broke into your house at night. It is safe to assume they have criminal intent. As such, you are weighing your safety and the chance that they are petty criminals who can do no real harm.



I get where you're coming from, but how hard would it have been to try and figure out just what was happening as opposed to shoot first, ask questions later? Not much harder at all.



av said:


> Because a lot of people in this thread are saying he 100% did not. My point is that we don't know, but there is a good chance that he was, indeed, in a situation, where firing was a logical, morally appropriate choice.



There's nothing moral about taking another person's life. To say that there is implies one has more of a right to live than another, and that such right is left at the discretion of one party or another, but when opinions over what is right and wrong differ from one to the other, proper, objective judgement can't be made by either party.


----------



## eHav (Mar 20, 2013)

Freedan said:


> It doesn't mean it will happen every single time. Just because it has happened before doesn't mean every intruder is necessarily armed and out to kill you. The homeowner had no need to be trigger happy.



you see, you keep repeating this but this is just stupid. if an army ranger finds some insurgent about to shoot him, there is a chance he might miss. doest that mean he should wait and see what happens before taking him out? nope he kills him on the spot.

only someone pretty retarded would confront a burglar that broke into their own home, by turning the lights on first, introducing himself, asking who the burglar was, and politely asking him to leave.



Freedan said:


> There's nothing moral about taking another person's life. To say that there is implies one has more of a right to live than another, and that such right is left at the discretion of one party or another, but when opinions over what is right and wrong differ from one to the other, proper, objective judgement can't be made by either party.



i see, you are the kind of idiot who would faster give up his own life rather than defending it. 
have fun with your morals when someone is actively trying to kill you


----------



## Ash (Mar 20, 2013)

I hope that fucktard gets thrown in prison. Shooting an unarmed, obviously confused kid is not in any way, shape or form self defense.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Owl said:


> I feel sorry for the victim but at the same time the homeowner had to do something. I mean yeah, the kid might've been innocent but what if it was a different case? Like actual burglars breaking into his house.



how about you not just shoot people even if they are burglars?


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

eHav said:


> you see, you keep repeating this but this is just stupid. if an army ranger finds some insurgent about to shoot him, there is a chance he might miss. doest that mean he should wait and see what happens before taking him out? nope he kills him on the spot.
> 
> only someone pretty retarded would confront a burglar that broke into their own home, by turning the lights on first, introducing himself, asking who the burglar was, and politely asking him to leave.
> 
> ...



you're an idiot. there's no reason he had to shoot an unarmed kid. all he had to do was call the police and maybe threaten the kid. but instead he was trigger happy and he murdered a kid for no reason


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> there's no reason he had to shoot an unarmed kid. all he had to do was call the police and maybe threaten the kid. but instead he was trigger happy and he murdered a kid for no reason



Did he know it was an unarmed kid? Because if not your whole point falls apart there. If he knew, he still has the right to defend himself on his own property. That said, I wouldn't shoot an unarmed kid myself, but he does have the right to do so. 


I can't speak as a father but as an uncle to 6 kids, 5 girls and 1 boy that I love.....Sure, I would be upset but in no way would I pursue punishment. The blame is entirely on the kid for making a very bad decision. He didn't deserve to die for the mistake but people die all of the time for various reasons and there is no taking it back. The kid made a mistake and the guy did what he thought he had to to keep himself and his family safe. There should be no blame on him. 

Its unfortunate but that is the fair way to view this.


Edit: Also, I think people shouldn't focus so much on the kid being armed or unarmed. What if the kid always had a knife on him or something when he went out? If his intentions were still pure the knife doesn't make this action any less tragic or one side any more or less guilty. The kid would still have made a mistake and the guy would still have every right to defend himself regardless if the kid is armed or not.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

nope I'm sorry unless you see someone else definitely has a gun there is no situation where you're justified shooting them


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Mar 20, 2013)

Deputy Myself said:


> Why the fuck would you shoot to kill



Who said he shoot to kill? It's a gun which are kind of lethal its not hard at all for a bullet to kill you it just needs to hit the right spot and you hardly have to aim for it.




> Why the fuck would you even shoot



 Someone broke into his house. He could of used a Bat or whatever instead but that of course opens up the chance of him getting shot if said person has a gun or getting beat up himself. 

Although assuming the report is true then he did not have a gun, and the home owner gave him a warning before shooting him. Which i personally would not do. 



> Even if it is a burglar, does that justify killing him?



Yep.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> nope I'm sorry unless you see someone else definitely has a gun there is no situation where you're justified shooting them



So if someone is trying to stab you to death you aren't justified in shooting them? If someone is beating you to death with a bat or any other weapon they can use to assault you you aren't justified?

Should we all be lethally trained in martial arts instead so if these situations arise we can properly defend ourselves? 

Anyway, the law says you are wrong. So until that is changed you will remain wrong.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

ok whatever if theyre trying to kill you then fine. but the point is in this situation I don't believe this was anything less than trigger happy murder. doesn't matter what the law says.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Mar 20, 2013)

Trigger happy Murderers don't give warnings, and fire a warning shot.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

obviously they do


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> ok whatever if theyre trying to kill you then fine.



Cool. 



> but the point is in this situation I don't believe this was anything less than trigger happy murder. doesn't matter what the law says.



It is fine to be unhappy with the situation but you should still view it fairly. It is 2am you are woken up from sleep by what is specifically called a "burglar" alarm. What exactly are you expected to do or think in that situation? The likely things going on in with you are fear, anxiety, confusion, tiredness and maybe some anger and other stuff thrown in. Everyones first goal is or should be survival. Calling out to and identifying yourself to what is 99% of the time a burglar, rapist or killer is not exactly a smart move. 

Lets just say for example the kid in this scenario is a killer. We read the story and the guy turns on the lights and ask what the kid wants. The kid shoots, kills and robs him. We are then calling this guy an idiot and wondering why the hell he did that. So basically the guy has a lose lose scenario in your mind.

A. He doesn't shoot and potentially loses his life, suffers injury or loses some things of value.

or

B. He goes to jail for defending himself. 

And I understand in this case there is a "C" option which is identifying a drunk kid and telling him he is in the wrong place. However, the odds of that are so slim that it is unreasonable to condemn this man for taking the safest course of action in the situation.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

CALL. THE. POLICE.

this is exactly why no one should have a gun


----------



## Alicia (Mar 20, 2013)

I still don't understand why people still support gun use when these kind of things occur so frequent.


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> CALL. THE. POLICE.



FOOL! Police can't be relied on to protect you! U NEEDZ UR GUNS TO DEFEND URSELF!!!!!


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Freedan said:


> FOOL! Police can't be relied on to protect you! U NEEDZ UR GUNS TO DEFEND URSELF!!!!!



Actually, police can't be relied on to protect you. Not only are they NOT legally obligated to protect anyone, they also have a thing called *gasp* "response time."
So when if you find yourself in a situation when an armed intruder breaks into your home, you better hope his favorite SOAP is on TV at the time and he sits down and watches it while you wait for the police to bring a, your so-feared, gun to try to protect you because you literally denied yourself the right to protect yourself. That's going to be a long 6-30 minutes while you wait. A long 6-30 minutes of regrets and wishing you could actually defend yourself and your loved ones.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

basically you're an idiot who justifies murder on the flimsiest of flimsy pretenses at self-defense.


----------



## Alicia (Mar 20, 2013)

and protecting yourself = empty your clips on the motherfucking bastard?

Seems legit.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> basically you're an idiot who justifies murder on the flimsiest of flimsy pretenses at self-defense.



Are you talking to me?


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> CALL. THE. POLICE.
> 
> this is exactly why no one should have a gun



A fair response but still not good enough. If someone is trying to kill you should you have to wait 5, 10 or possibly....More minutes before being legally allowed to defend yourself? 

That is exactly why people should have guns or be allowed to if they choose. Because the police can't be everywhere in an instant or sometimes even in a short enough amount of time. 

I am not saying we need a bunch of Rambos walking the streets with giant knives and rocket launchers but keeping a pistol in your home for such situations is completely reasonable.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

cyphon i didnt say call the police if someone was trying to kill you. although thats still what you should do. if you have a burglar in the house and your response is 'get a gun and shoot him' instead of 'call the police' you're a fucking psychopath


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> cyphon i didnt say call the police if someone was trying to kill you. although thats still what you should do. if you have a burglar in the house and your response is 'get a gun and shoot him' instead of 'call the police' you're a fucking psychopath



You continue to ignore the big picture. How do you identify a persons intentions without asking them? Why do we assume the best when it is our life we are gambling on being right? What you are asking of people is unreasonable.

If you have a safe room in your house, sure, go there instead of trying to confront someone. But if you are left out on your own with a closet to hide in with a potential murderer after you I don't think you should have to wait 10 minutes on the cops.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> cyphon i didnt say call the police if someone was trying to kill you. although thats still what you should do. if you have a burglar in the house and your response is 'get a gun and shoot him' instead of 'call the police' you're a fucking psychopath



You're adding elements of detail to the story that no one could know in the present. This is called the "Historian's Falacy." The homeowner didn't shoot a "burglar" he shot an "intruder." A drunken intruder who broke into his home in the middle of the night. The victim wasn't wearing a giant "burglar" sign or anything. And a friendly reminder to the folks who suggest turning the lights on, if the intruder has a gun, didn't you just make yourself a target?

I'm ready for the inevitable strawman and redherrings against my last statement.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

I think it'd have been fine if he'd just threatened the kid with a gun. when you shoot someone with a gun when you have no reason to believe they're armed or anything, that's messed up. but unsurprising from the sort of person who keeps a gun for self-defense because they tend to be reactionary assholes like this guy.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> You're adding elements of detail to the story that no one could know in the present. This is called the "Historian's Falacy." The homeowner didn't shoot a "burglar" he shot an "intruder." A drunken intruder who broke into his home in the middle of the night. The victim wasn't wearing a giant "burglar" sign or anything. And a friendly reminder to the folks who suggest turning the lights on, if the intruder has a gun, didn't you just make yourself a target?
> 
> I'm ready for the inevitable strawman and redherrings against my last statement.



dont care. if you dont see a gun and he doesnt attack you there's no reason to shoot, end of story.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Mar 20, 2013)

i don't feel sorry for drunks.


----------



## Karsh (Mar 20, 2013)

^ I don't feel sorry for murderers of a 16yo



Red Queen said:


> I think this was an accident guys. What you guys think?  No more guns?
> 
> Too bad he didn't get beaten/killed with a bat instead.



OHO, coming at him with a bat or with fists might have given the poor kid a chance to survive and the utter retard that is the home owner might have actually SEEN who the victim was!

Shoot first, look later?

Wtf is wrong with you people?

No wonder people are afraid of going to the U.S.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Linkdarkside said:


> i don't feel sorry for drunks.


getting drunk as a teenager doesn't make you an alcoholic. ironically the shooter should go to jail for manslaughter since his extremely poor judgment led to needless death.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> I think it'd have been fine if he'd just threatened the kid with a gun. when you shoot someone with a gun when you have no reason to believe they're armed or anything, that's messed up.


Actually, breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night gives a quite reasonable conclusion that they are likely to be armed, and are you willing to risk it?



> but unsurprising from the sort of person who keeps a gun for self-defense because they tend to be reactionary assholes like this guy.


Oh, here we go, folks. More stereotyping. Hey, you went a post without flaming me, I'm surprised. Anywho, it's convenient for you that this intruder wasn't armed, and if an intruder breaks into your home, I hope you also have the convenience of them not being armed and also the convenience of you being much stronger than them if they decide to attack you. Because I'm going to hypothesized that you deny yourself the right to self-defense, which is fine as long as you have the aforementioned conveniences. You know how this news article would have panned out if the intruder was armed? It wouldn't. There wouldn't be a news article because it wouldn't be news.




Petes12 said:


> dont care. *if you dont see a gun* and he doesnt attack you there's no reason to shoot, end of story.



Exactly, but now you're gambling on them not having a weapon and you not being prepared if they did. If you turn the lights on and make yourself a target, if they have a gun, you're about to die, if they don't, they'll probably run. 

Now think about some statistics, burglaries almost always happen in the day, murders almost always happen in the night. Based on those two stats, someone breaking into your house at night tilts it towards the one where you'd need a gun.

But then again, you "don't care." It must take a special kind of mindset to live in a world so naive and ignorant that the only person affected by that ignorance is yourself.


----------



## Alicia (Mar 20, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Oh, you have a new source that describes how the *homeowner emptied clips* (clipS being multiple)? Please do share, because that would change this entire situation. Of course, you could just be fabricating a detail so that this story more easily fits your stereotype of a gun-owner and is more sensational and in-line with an anti-gun agenda.



Clearly did not read my irony in that statement, but whatever.

Really can't understand you pro-gun people because anti-gun laws in fact *work* in European countries. Intruders don't carry guns and usually avoid open conflict and rapists would never break into your homes. Even *if* armed robberies occur, there are never causalities because no one is flailing his/her gun at the armed robber(s) forcing him/them to shoot any of the civilians.


----------



## PureWIN (Mar 20, 2013)

I love how posters like Petes12 and Daftvirgin are outright adding in details to make their ill-conceived points. It's obvious that you guys are absolutely against gun use regardless of the situation, so stop contributing to this thread as if you actually have something to discuss on the subject.

It's also obvious that some people simply do not understand what a flight or fight situation is like, and they believe facing a potentially armed burglar/rapist/murderer in the middle of the night is no big deal. 

Edit: Also, I love all of the U.S. bashing. I'm sure that posters from other countries can easily go breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night without the risk of death. Go ahead and try.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Karsh said:


> OHO, coming at him with a bat or with fists might have given the poor kid a chance to survive and the utter retard that is the home owner might have actually SEEN who the victim was!


The problem with fists and bats is that they aren't equalizers. The homeowner could be an elderly man in wheelchair for all we know.



> Shoot first, look later?



No one is arguing this; take your strawman elsewhere.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

this whole situation could only happen if you shot first and looked later so by defending this guy;s actions you are absolutely advocating that. shoot first, look later, because there's a chance he might be armed. that's your argument.


----------



## PureWIN (Mar 20, 2013)

^ People have already explained countless times why that approach doesn't work. Enough with the strawman arguments.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Daftvirgin said:


> Clearly did not read my irony in that statement, but whatever.
> 
> Really can't understand you pro-gun people because anti-gun laws in fact *work* in European countries. Intruders don't carry guns and usually avoid open conflict and rapists would never break into your homes. Even *if* armed robberies occur, there are never causalities because no one is flailing his/her gun at the armed robber(s) forcing him/them to shoot any of the civilians.



Even more shit that goes uncited. Europe, like Norway (which has almost no gun laws the last time I was there), have much less gun violence because *gasp* they have better mental health care. And the problem with people with guns is the "people" part of that equation. Some people are fucking insane and in America, those people aren't identified until after there was a tragedy. And that's the real tragedy here, that people think removing guns will reduce that, instead you'll have just as many insane people and less law-abiding citizens with guns, instead of tackling the real issue: people with mental problems.

For some reason, we focus on the wrong part of gun violence and yet we focus on the right part with fork-abuse.


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> No one is arguing this; take your strawman elsewhere.



You kind of are when you justify what the homeowner did, which is exactly "shoot first, look later." But as much as people are saying "killing is a last resort," you're contradicting yourself when you say he did the right thing, which was kill on sight as a first resort action.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Even more shit that goes uncited. Europe, like Norway (which has almost no gun laws the last time I was there), have much less gun violence because *gasp* they have better mental health care. And the problem with people with guns is the "people" part of that equation. Some people are fucking insane and in America, those people aren't identified until after there was a tragedy. And that's the real tragedy here, that people think removing guns will reduce that, instead you'll have just as many insane people and less law-abiding citizens with guns, instead of tackling the real issue: people with mental problems.
> 
> For some reason, we focus on the wrong part of gun violence and yet we focus on the right part with fork-abuse.



every gun owner in norway must register their gun and have a specific reason for owning it. hunting is the most common reason. you are not allowed to own a gun for self-defense in norway except in extreme circumstances, i assume things like handicapped people, etc.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Mar 20, 2013)

Daftvirgin said:


> Clearly did not read my irony in that statement, but whatever.
> 
> Really can't understand you pro-gun people because anti-gun laws in fact *work* in European countries. Intruders don't carry guns and usually avoid open conflict and rapists would never break into your homes. Even *if* armed robberies occur, there are never causalities because no one is flailing his/her gun at the armed robber(s) forcing him/them to shoot any of the civilians.



What? In the UK, possession of handguns is illegal. But they have over 2,000 instances of violent crime per 100,000 people vs 450 in the US. 



You're using false rhetoric to push your point but aren't actually pointing out any hard (or flimsy) evidence. The UK is a far more violent country than the US, _without_ guns. Hell, guns in the US get used 80 times more for self defense (successfully) than incidents of homicide, suicide or accidental discharge. 

People also seem to be confusing the "right to shoot someone" argument against a question of whether or not he should've been worried for his safety. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you don't assume they're just going to run at the sight of your visage. He was given fair caution, had a warning shot fired, and still didn't back away. 

I find some of the responses in here laughable. 

The homeowner is seriously meant to handicap himself so it's _fair_ for the intruder? They have to take on a higher chance of serious injury to satisfy the guy who's just broken into someone else's house? That just comes across as a knee-jerk reaction. "Oh god, my toddler just bumped his head on a the corner of a coffee table. Quickly, ban any non-rounded tables!". It's impractical and short sighted garbage that doesn't hold up in the light of logic. 

At worst, this whole case is a tragedy. No one is strictly to BLAME for anything. It's just a shitty thing that happened. It'd either be this, or a baseball bat/knife.


----------



## Alicia (Mar 20, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Even more shit that goes uncited. Europe, like Norway (which has almost no gun laws the last time I was there), have much less gun violence because *gasp* they have better mental health care. And the problem with people with guns is the "people" part of that equation. Some people are fucking insane and in America, those people aren't identified until after there was a tragedy. And that's the real tragedy here, that people think removing guns will reduce that, instead you'll have just as many insane people and less law-abiding citizens with guns, instead of tackling the real issue: people with mental problems.
> 
> For some reason, we focus on the wrong part of gun violence and yet we focus on the right part with fork-abuse.



And how many people were actually able to take down the mentally-ill shooter with a gun themselves? 

And all killings which involves a gun are done by the mentally ill?


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

violent crime is higher, deaths are lower. kinda says it all.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Mar 20, 2013)

Freedan said:


> You kind of are when you justify what the homeowner did, which is exactly "shoot first, look later." But as much as people are saying "killing is a last resort," you're contradicting yourself when you say he did the right thing, which was kill on sight as a first resort action.



Again, he didn't shoot to kill. Very few people have the ability to do that on command. They just shoot. And if faced with the threat of an intruder, that seems like a pretty normal reaction. Are you seriously telling me that in the event of a break-in, you'd be willing to alert the intruder to your presence, or lock yourself in a room and just pray they don't come to get you?

I'm actually genuinely curious here. I'm curious as to what some people here would do, if in the same position as the homeowner.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Freedan said:


> You kind of are when you justify what the homeowner did, which is exactly "shoot first, look later." But as much as people are saying "killing is a last resort," you're contradicting yourself when you say he did the right thing, which was kill on sight as a first resort action.


We don't know this. The homeowner could have asked the intruder to identify himself, and the drunk responded with cursing. The homeowner could have turned the lights on and told the drunk to leave, but the drunk could have charged. We don't know what happened here, we need more details before we condemn it to the "shot first, looked later."



Petes12 said:


> every gun owner in norway must register their gun and have a specific reason for owning it. hunting is the most common reason.


Wow, kind of like exactly like in America. "Self-defense" isn't even an option on a firearm license in America. But you know what most people go with? "Sport" or "Hunting."



> you are not allowed to own a gun for self-defense in norway except in extreme circumstances, i assume things like handicapped people, etc.


Oh yeah, let me tell you, when someone breaks into your house on the Fjord, you're going to put down the rifle and pick up a knife.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Phancy Pants said:


> Again, he didn't shoot to kill. Very few people have the ability to do that on command. They just shoot. And if faced with the threat of an intruder, that seems like a pretty normal reaction. Are you seriously telling me that in the event of a break-in, you'd be willing to alert the intruder to your presence, or lock yourself in a room and just pray they don't come to get you?
> 
> I'm actually genuinely curious here. I'm curious as to what some people here would do, if in the same position as the homeowner.



uhhhh yeah absolutely. or just get out of the house if I can. I wouldn't shoot them, to me that's an insane overreaction.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> I think it'd have been fine if he'd just threatened the kid with a gun.



Come on now Petes. You HAVE to understand that is dumb idea. Again, what if the person is armed. You threaten them with a gun and they shoot so that you can't make good on the threat.

Part of your idea is right. And that is not just going shoot first and ask questions last. The problem is, that only applies to certain situations. 

The issue you are having here is that you are imagining a perfect scenario where the guy knows the kid is drunk and unarmed and has simply made a mistake. The problem is, that scenario didn't happening so your ideal can't apply. You don't risk your lifes on what if's. 

And I want to stress here that I consider this a tragedy. I am not glad it happened nor do I cheer the guy for his actions. But he didn't do anything wrong. It was his life or the "burglar", "killers" or whoevers. Sure, looking back we can make informed decisions but hindsight is 20/20 so the saying goes. 



> when you shoot someone with a gun when you have no reason to believe they're armed or anything, that's messed up.



A fair point but that doesn't apply here so I am not sure why you would bring it up. 



> but unsurprising from the sort of person who keeps a gun for self-defense because they tend to be reactionary assholes like this guy.



So everyone who wants to live is an asshole? Smh.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Daftvirgin said:


> And how many people were actually able to take down the mentally-ill shooter with a gun themselves?


In schools and post offices? Never, because it's incredibly illegal for a law-abiding citizen to carry in a school or post office. I wonder why criminals with guns target these places, must be a coincidence.
In banks, offices, homes, streets, and restaurants? Plenty of times, but those aren't news-worthy.



> And all killings which involves a gun are done by the mentally ill?


Nope. But the type of people that people need to defend themselves from are the mentally ill. It takes a mentally ill person to decide to murder innocent people. Killing someone in pure self-defense isn't mentally-ill, it's an instinct.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

last I checked, not all states here require you to even have a permit, and thats assuming you dont just buy your guns through the gun show loophole. in norway you have to take a course on gun safety. you have to keep your guns in a state approved safe. and police can inspect said safe regularly. 

in other words, make no mistake, gun laws in norway are significantly more strict than here, even though guns are common there too.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> violent crime is higher, deaths are lower. kinda says it all.



Ok, so you're presented with actual statistics and a source that provides even more than the article that presented it, and you still draw a conclusion based in a vacuum? 

The article itself doesn't even mention the homicide rate, so you've just pulled that out of thin air. The intentional homicide rate in the US is way down the list of countries, and almost as low as the UK. Even with their ban on guns. And that's including police shootings. 

And those homicides? A mixture of all kinds of violent crime. i.e. Gun deaths account for even FEWER homicides. There are so many inconsistencies it's scary. The 9 European nations with the _lowest_ gun ownership rate, have a combined murder rate 3 times that of the 9 European nations with the _highest_ gun ownership rate.



Have a look at some actual, legitimate information instead of basing your arguments with information from the Department of Feelings and Opinions. This is why every person of science hates post modernist theory...


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> last I checked, not all states here require you to even have a permit, and thats assuming you dont just buy your guns through the gun show loophole. in norway you have to take a course on gun safety. you have to keep your guns in a state approved safe. and police can inspect said safe regularly.
> 
> in other words, make no mistake, gun laws in norway are significantly more strict than here, even though guns are common there too.



So this makes Norway okay for guns and America not okay for guns how?


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

Phancy Pants said:


> The article itself doesn't even mention the homicide rate, so you've just pulled that out of thin air. The intentional homicide rate in the US is way down the list of countries, *and almost as low as the UK*. Even with their ban on guns. And that's including police shootings.





Btw, police officers in the UK aren't allowed to carry guns either.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Come on now Petes. You HAVE to understand that is dumb idea. Again, what if the person is armed. You threaten them with a gun and they shoot so that you can't make good on the threat.
> 
> Part of your idea is right. And that is not just going shoot first and ask questions last. The problem is, that only applies to certain situations.
> 
> ...



so if someone is pointing a gun at you and you dont have a gun out, you're gonna, what, quickdraw? cmon. 

but you're right, threatening with a gun also makes it more likely someone is going to get shot. we just shouldn't let people keep guns for self-defense, it only makes things more dangerous, statistically.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> So this makes Norway okay for guns and America not okay for guns how?



they have proper gun control and give educational courses so the situation is a lot better there than here.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> so if someone is pointing a gun at you and you dont have a gun out, you're gonna, what, quickdraw? cmon.



Again, how do you know if the person has a gun out? You are still picturing the perfect scenario here. 



> but you're right, threatening with a gun also makes it more likely someone is going to get shot. we just shouldn't let people keep guns for self-defense, it only makes things more dangerous, statistically.



We should allow people to have guns for self defense. They just need to be properly educated on gun usage and safety. Of course that really has nothing to do with this story.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Mar 20, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Btw, police officers in the UK aren't allowed to carry guns either.



My point was they rank very low on the list. Despite diametrically opposed legislation surrounding guns. Again, refer to the harvard law study I posted. 

Point being that the numbers aren't as transparent as a lot of posters on here would believe. There are very clear inconsistencies that show that more than a passing knowledge of the topic is needed to make judgments on it. And that's fine. 

What gets annoying is this postmodern view of intellectual inquiry that means that so many people are happy to settle for rhetoric or a 'gut feeling' over actual statistics.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Mar 20, 2013)

It's not the neighbor's fault the kid directly and defiantly disobeyed his parents snuck out of his house went to a party 
Drink underage and irresponsibly for that matter; to the point where he can't even tell where his home is.


----------



## Toroxus (Mar 20, 2013)

makeoutparadise said:


> It's not the neighbor's fault the kid directly and defiantly disobeyed his parents snuck out of his house went to a party
> Drink underage and irresponsibly for that matter; to the point where he can't even tell where his home is.



Somewhat true. He didn't deserve to die, but when you consume a drug so much that you willingly sacrifice any judgment abilities, that's your own problem. He's lucky he even made it home without getting ran over.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Mar 20, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Somewhat true. He didn't deserve to die, but when you consume a drug so much that you willingly sacrifice any judgment abilities, that's your own problem. He's lucky he even made it home without getting ran over.



Exactly so!

The shooter is at fault for perhaps acting too rashly and out of fear


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 20, 2013)

The real question is what was that guy doing leaving his window unlocked in the first place? Especially if he's using a gun to protect his family. Locking up his house should be a priority.


----------



## Alicia (Mar 20, 2013)

makeoutparadise said:


> It's not the neighbor's fault the kid directly and defiantly disobeyed his parents snuck out of his house went to a party
> Drink underage and irresponsibly for that matter; to the point where he can't even tell where his home is.



Doesn't justify the fact he killed a human being.


----------



## T7 Bateman (Mar 20, 2013)

Sad that happened but it's not the homeowners fault.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Daftvirgin said:


> Doesn't justify the fact he killed a human being.



It does, he thought his life was in danger and acted accordingly, only a person who leans left would clam the criminals life is more valuable than your own.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Fuck Yea.. +1 for the 2nd Amendment and guns.


----------



## Almesiva Moonshadow (Mar 20, 2013)

*Give a gun into a retard's hands, and this is what happens. *

*The fuck...if I shot everyone who by mistake walked into my apartment, I'd have a pile of bodies in my backyard by now. *


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Fuck Yea.. +1 for the 2nd Amendment and guns.



Fuck yeah,  ?1 for Bloomberg and his idiotic fascination with banning them, along with assault soda bottles.  We can't have large capacity sodas, it's for the children!!


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> Fuck yeah,  ?1 for Bloomberg and his idiotic fascination with banning them, along with assault soda bottles.  We can't have large capacity sodas, it's for the children!!



Yea, because the safest place in the world is a subway full of people with an assortment of weapons right? 

And what the fuck does soda have to do with guns? Stay on topic bro.


----------



## Jena (Mar 20, 2013)

This is case where there is no "right" side and no "wrong" side. It can't be simplified to "it's the kid's fault for breaking in" or "it's the homeowner's fault for shooting him." 

Tragic situation all around.


----------



## Roman (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> It does, he thought his life was in danger and acted accordingly, only a person who leans left would clam the criminals life is more valuable than your own.



This isn't about who's life is more valuable. That's the mistake gun-advocates make. "The burglar tried to steal from me and was willing to kill. Because of that, he lost his privilege to live. I'm only trying to protect myself, thus I have the right to life that he does not." That is not true. As both are human beings, both have the right to live. Neither one more than the other. One side cannot decide if the other has the right to live because in the end, both want to kill. One side can't judge the other for the same reasons.



Soldaun said:


> Fuck yeah,  ?1 for Bloomberg and his idiotic fascination with banning them, along with assault soda bottles.  We can't have large capacity sodas, it's for the children!!



Get a hint, he was being sarcastic.


----------



## Cheeky (Mar 20, 2013)

But if the teenager had a gun, he might not have been killed.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Yea, because the safest place in the world is a subway full of people with an assortment of weapons right?
> 
> And what the fuck does soda have to do with guns? Stay on topic bro.



In NYC I would be just as suspicious of police officers as I would of someone just on the street corner.  NYC cops love to over step their authority, as well as New Jersey. 

Fact of the matter is I would feel safer if I knew the person standing next to me had a CCW license.

Freedan, I was being sarcastic too, hence the soda remark, get a hint.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 20, 2013)

The guy seems way too trigger happy. How about not just shoot someone, unless you're living in a dangerous neighborhood. Imagine you shot your daughter's boyfriend or someone?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Souldan said:
			
		

> In NYC I would be just as suspicious of police officers as I would of someone just on the street corner. NYC cops love to over step their authority, as well as New Jersey.



Uhhh, do you live in New York City? Have you ever walked the streets of New York late at night? 

I tell you, seeing cops in a bad neighborhood is a reassuring sight. Of course, if you're black you'll be more likely to be racially profiled and have to deal with overreaching cops. But that can change over time with better practices and  oversight. 



			
				Souldan said:
			
		

> Fact of the matter is I would feel safer if I knew the person standing next to me had a CCW license.



In a crowded subway? lol.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> The guy seems way too trigger happy. How about not just shoot someone, unless you're living in a dangerous neighborhood. Imagine you shot your daughter's boyfriend or someone?



The same can be said for the opposite argument, what if it had been a criminal intend on murdering the family.  These what if arguements are tiring.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Souldan said:
			
		

> The same can be said for the opposite argument, what if it had been a criminal intend on murdering the family. These what if arguements are tiring.



It wasn't. An unnecessary loss of life. 

If there had been stronger gun laws, and a complete elimination of all arms in the country, a scenario where a criminal with a gun entering a house would be nearly impossible.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

HaxHax said:


> Allowing people to kill for something as simple as trespassing is laughable at best.
> 
> Should be locked away. But USA USA USA.



Its not trespassing its breaking and entering. Learn the law dumb shit.


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> ok whatever if theyre trying to kill you then fine. but the point is in this situation I don't believe this was anything less than trigger happy murder. doesn't matter what the law says.



So the home owner knows the guy who broke into his house at 2 in the morning doesn't have a gun because.... ?

I love how all of you live in this fantasy world of candy and rainbows where you assume gun laws would prevent criminals from obtaining them, by the way.


----------



## Orochimaru (Mar 20, 2013)

I guess he won't be making this mistake twice.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> It wasn't. An unnecessary loss of life.
> 
> If there had been stronger gun laws, and a complete elimination of all arms in the country, a scenario where a criminal with a gun entering a house would be nearly impossible.



Not true, Marijuana already crosses the border from Mexico despite drug sniffing dogs, guns would just be next to start coming over.  And sorry to say it, but you can't train a dog to sniff for guns.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:
			
		

> Not true, Marijuana already crosses the border from Mexico despite drug sniffing dogs, guns would just be next to start coming over. And sorry to say it, but you can't train a dog to sniff for guns.



Gotta step up enforcement don't we? Because criminals are going to commit crimes, do we simply legalize those crimes?



			
				Vice said:
			
		

> So the home owner knows the guy who broke into his house at 2 in the morning doesn't have a gun because.... ?
> 
> I love how all of you live in this fantasy world of candy and rainbows where you assume gun laws would prevent criminals from obtaining them, by the way.



There's also a thing called enforcement. Have strong stringent enforcement with new tracking techniques, along with severe punishment for smuggling/dealing guns, and perhaps getting a gun will be more difficult.


----------



## Rima (Mar 20, 2013)

And this all could have been avoided if he had just stayed inside like he was supposed to.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> If there had been stronger gun laws, and a complete elimination of all arms in the country



Get the fuck out. No. Seriously. Get the fuck out.

Im all for stronger gun laws because nobody needs a m16 but when you talki about removing the ability to defend yourself or your family your a fucking retard.



LouDAgreat said:


> Gotta step up enforcement don't we? Because criminals are going to commit crimes, do we simply legalize those crimes?




Stupid arguement. It it were legal it wouldnt be a crime and there would be no reason to persue them in the first place.


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Gotta step up enforcement don't we? Because criminals are going to commit crimes, do we simply legalize those crimes?



The point is that making guns illegal isn't going to completely stop people who want them from getting them. 

Drugs are illegal, people still use them.


----------



## Darc (Mar 20, 2013)

Shoulda kept his ass home.


----------



## Majinsaga (Mar 20, 2013)

Deputy Myself said:


> Why the fuck would you shoot to kill
> Why the fuck would you even shoot
> Even if it is a burglar, does that justify killing him?



Yes it does. All criminals give up their right to live the second they commit a crime.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

Majinsaga said:


> Yes it does. All criminals give up their right to live the second they commit a crime.



Certain crimes.

Im not particularly inclined to shoot a jaywalker. 

Arsonist? Yeah Id pop him.


----------



## GRIMMM (Mar 20, 2013)

This thread, so delicious.


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

You also wave all rights if you break into someone's home in the middle of the night.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Drugs are illegal but some politicians use them anyway, the very people who say we can't have them.  Dianne Feinsteinn is against concealed carry and wants to ban it, but conceal carries herself.  The hypocrisy is amazing


----------



## santanico (Mar 20, 2013)

He didn't have to shoot to kill if the kid wasn't coming at him. BUT, I can imagine the guy was scared and just aimed and pulled the trigger, extremely tragic.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 20, 2013)

> Just because they tend to doesn't mean EVERYONE who breaks in has a weapon.



This kind of naive thinking will get you killed, your life is more important then the person endangering it.

The kid didn't lose his right to live, the home owner gained the right to protect himself and his loved ones.


Its tragic this misunderstanding happened, but the blame can't be put on anyone other the stupid kid who deliberately disobeyed everything he has been told.


----------



## Griever (Mar 20, 2013)

starr said:


> He didn't have to shoot to kill if the kid wasn't coming at him. BUT, I can imagine the guy was scared and just aimed and pulled the trigger, extremely tragic.



This. Lady Starr is a sensible individual. I can't really fault the homeowner for his action. He was probably awoken in the dead of night by the sound of the teen trying to get into his window. Upon seeing the figure in the room, opened fire. 

this incident is extremely unfortunate, but i don't really see fault with either. The teen was just doing what teens do in sneaking out and drinking, god knows I've done it many times when i was that age. the homeowner did what he thought he had to do in order to protect himself, he was however, without malicious intent.


----------



## Dattebayo-chan (Mar 20, 2013)

That was uneccessary. Just because you accidently enter the wrong house while drunk doesn't justify getting shot at and killed.

I can imagine the home-owner acted too rashly out of fear and stress. Still, it's pretty disturbing how easily the kid got shot to death, in my opinion


----------



## sparkykandy (Mar 20, 2013)

I know that various states have something called the Castle doctrine.  Basically, if somebody's intruding into your home, you have every right to defend yourself and shoot them. 

I'm not sure what the law is like in Virgina, but it's possible that the homeowner won't face any charges for this.


----------



## TenshiNeko (Mar 20, 2013)

> The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
> 
> Caleb didn?t stop, and the homeowner fired again, striking and killing the teen, the official said.



So, the teen was heading UP THE STAIRS?!! ....That would make sense, if he thought he was at home and was going to his room, BUT ........... Do you know what that would look like to the homeowner? Like a creep who was heading upstairs to harm the homeowner's family! 

A regular burglar would try to avoid the people, take stuff, and leave. This guy ignored the homeowner's warning, and warning shot, and headed upstairs? Anyone would think he was up to something worse than stealing.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Guriko of Suzuran said:
			
		

> Get the fuck out. No. Seriously. Get the fuck out.



You get the fuck out. I'm staying put. How bout you get your guns the fuck out. 



> Im all for stronger gun laws because nobody needs a m16 but when you talki about removing the ability to defend yourself or your family your a fucking retard.



There are other, less lethal alternatives to defend yourself. 



			
				Guriko of Suzuran said:
			
		

> ]Stupid arguement. It it were legal it wouldnt be a crime and there would be no reason to persue them in the first place.



Uhhh...exactly my point? Because those actions are illegal, we pursue and convict criminals that do them...if gun manufacturing and ownership becomes illegal, we pursue and convict those who decide to manufacture and own them. We don't stop enforcing things simply because they're gonna happen anyway.



> The point is that making guns illegal isn't going to completely stop people who want them from getting them.
> 
> Drugs are illegal, people still use them.



And my point is, rape is gonna continue to happen even though it's illegal, people aren't gonna stop committing crimes because their illegal. People won't stop buying guns, even if their illegal. So...you step up enforcement. 

Marijuana, and other drugs are more to do with personal consumption. Guns are a hazardous existential threat to everyone.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

A taser would've put this teen on his ass.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> You get the fuck out. I'm staying put. How bout you get your guns the fuck out.


How are things over there on the wrong side of the constitution.




> There are other, less lethal alternatives to defend yourself.


Whats the difference between shooting somone and splitting thier skull open with a crowbar.



> Uhhh...exactly my point? Because those actions are illegal, we pursue and convict criminals that do them...if gun manufacturing and ownership becomes illegal, we pursue and convict those who decide to manufacture and own them. We don't stop enforcing things simply because they're gonna happen anyway.


How about we make cars illegal. They kill a fuck ton of people and contribute to the deteriorating ozone layer. We should make porn illegal too. Its killed quintillions of unborn babies. We should make salt illegal too since alot of people die from high blood pressure and raise the price of health care.


Im curious. How would you enforce making guns illegal? Give up your guns or we are going to... what? Mace you?


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Lou lives in a perfect world where nothing bad happens, and the possibility of something bad happening is viciously denied.  

On the other hand, where people live in the real world and home burglaries happen regularly, and defense is necessary, Lou claims we are barbaric and inhumane.  It us who must leave our imperfect world and enter his perfect existence of total control and no freedoms.  For freedoms are evil and dictatorship is good.  Bad us for loving freedom, how dare we, how dare!!! 

Lou, show me the way for I have seen the error in my logical ways


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 20, 2013)

Well well well, what have we here...America....AGAIN  that country always bring a smile to my face


----------



## Wesley (Mar 20, 2013)

Rima said:


> And this all could have been avoided if he had just stayed inside like he was supposed to.



Or if the owner had locked his door.  I mean, you have a burglar alarm, you have a gun, but you don't lock your doors?  Are you inviting trouble?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Guriko of Suzuran said:
			
		

> How are things over there on the wrong side of the constitution.



Civilized, cultured, educated. Cosmopolitan. Crossroads of the world. Hectic. Safe and sound. Greatest City in the World.

How are things in the middle of paranoid fuck hicksville, where you need a gun so bad even though you only have a handful of neighbors to fear? 



> Whats the difference between shooting somone and splitting thier skull open with a crowbar.



You need a little more of *YOUR OWN* strength and malice to do kill someone with a crowbar. If you shoot someone in the head or vital area, their most likely dead, hit someone with a crowbar, you just might survive and face justice. 

Or you could get a taser and stun them. 



			
				Guriko of Suzuran said:
			
		

> How about we make cars illegal. They kill a fuck ton of people and contribute to the deteriorating ozone layer. We should make porn illegal too. Its killed quintillions of unborn babies. We should make salt illegal too since alot of people die from high blood pressure and raise the price of health care.



All those said items you listed...WE'RE NOT INTENDED TO KILL PEOPLE. They have stated purposes that are meant to increase quality of life...

Gun don't increase quality of life...they just take it away.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Souldan said:
			
		

> Lou lives in a perfect world where nothing bad happens, and the possibility of something bad happening is viciously denied.



Actually New York has seen big increases in quality of life over the past few years. Much work is still needed, but all things considered, too bad. And lol, viciously denied? Are you kidding, shit happens all the time, it's a part of life..we don't deny, unlike you guys that deny guns are unnecessary. 



			
				Souldan said:
			
		

> On the other hand, where people live in the real world and home burglaries happen regularly, and defense is necessary, Lou claims we are barbaric and inhumane.



Sucks to live where you live. Must be a real shithole. 



			
				Souldan said:
			
		

> It us who must leave our imperfect world and enter his perfect existence of total control and no freedoms. For freedoms are evil and dictatorship is good. Bad us for loving freedom, how dare we, how dare!!!



See what I mean? This is the mindset of the gun nut. If you take away their guns, you are also taking away their free speech, free religion, free press, free press, their right to vote, and their home. To a gun nut, the ultimate freedom is gun ownership.


----------



## Jing (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Civilized, cultured, educated. Cosmopolitan. Crossroads of the world. Hectic. Safe and sound. Greatest City in the World.
> 
> How are things in the middle of paranoid fuck hicksville, where you need a gun so bad even though you only have a handful of neighbors to fear?
> 
> ...



Wait, what? So what you're saying is porn and salt are meant to kill people?


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> Lou lives in a perfect world where nothing bad happens, and the possibility of something bad happening is viciously denied.
> 
> On the other hand, where people live in the real world and home burglaries happen regularly, and defense is necessary, Lou claims we are barbaric and inhumane.  It us who must leave our imperfect world and enter his perfect existence of total control and no freedoms.  For freedoms are evil and dictatorship is good.  Bad us for loving freedom, how dare we, how dare!!!
> 
> Lou, show me the way for I have seen the error in my logical ways



in the real world, statistically guns used 'in self defense' ends in tragedy far more than it ends in any sort of positive result.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Gun ownership is the ultimate freedom, as it protects all other freedoms we enjoy.   The proof is in the pudding, as we wouldn't have a standing army otherwise.  So to say gun ownership is paranoia when in reality it protects our freedoms is illogical.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Jing said:
			
		

> Wait, what? So what you're saying is porn and salt are meant to kill people?



My apologies, I've edited the statement...Those things are NOT intended to kill people...unlike guns.



			
				Souldan said:
			
		

> Gun ownership is the ultimate freedom, as it protects all other freedoms we enjoy. The proof is in the pudding, as we wouldn't have a standing army otherwise. So to say gun ownership is paranoia when in reality it protects our freedoms is illogical.



Why don't you ask Europeans how they enjoy their freedoms without guns...it'll give you an alternative view of the world other than the Constitutional mindset.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> in the real world, statistically guns used 'in self defense' ends in tragedy far more than it ends in any sort of positive result.



You're right, it's such a tragedy when a law abiding citizen kills a violent criminal.  Whether you like it or not CCW carriers miss identify their targets less than police. 

Case in point, the police who shot up that blue truck with two female passengers while looking for that ex cop.   Keep in mind this was broad daylight and the make and model of the truck was completely different that what he was driving, as well as the color.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> Civilized, cultured, educated. Cosmopolitan. Crossroads of the world. Hectic. Safe and sound. Greatest City in the World.
> 
> How are things in the middle of paranoid fuck hicksville, where you need a gun so bad even though you only have a handful of neighbors to fear?


You seem to not understand how this being a human thing works. People were killing since way before there were guns and will continue to do so long after the technology becomes outmoded. Not to mention what do guns have to do with being educated or cultured you non-sequitor using fuck. You are outright stating if you have a gun you cant be educated or cultured. So if Sanjay gupta one of the most educated medical mind son the planet bought a gun he automatically becomes something less. What the fuck are you 8.

Have you ever been to a gun show? They are the most polite places ive ever been to. I accidently pissed on a guy's leg and he didnt even get mad. You know what he said. "Its no problem sir." Sir. Whens the last time you were called sir?


> You need a little more of *YOUR OWN* strength and malice to do kill someone with a crowbar. If you shoot someone in the head or vital area, their most likely dead, hit someone with a crowbar, you just might survive and face justice.
> 
> Or you could get a taser and stun them.


Thats puts women, children, the elderly, the disabled and the sick at a hell of a disadvantage dont you think. Even ignoring the face to use a taser you have to get within arms reach. Arms reach of somebody physically superior and with a far more harmful mindset than you own.

Sounds like a terrible fucking idea.




> All those said items you listed...WE'RE INTENDED TO KILL PEOPLE. They have stated purposes that are meant to increase quality of life...
> 
> Gun don't increase quality of life...they just take it away.


The pioneers disagree. And gun were intended to kill animals. It just so happens they are pretty damn good at killing people too.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> You're right, it's such a tragedy when a law abiding citizen kills a violent criminal.  Whether you like it or not CCW carriers miss identify their targets less than police.
> 
> Case in point, the police who shot up that blue truck with two female passengers while looking for that ex cop.   Keep in mind this was broad daylight and the make and model of the truck was completely different that what he was driving, as well as the color.



it is for minor crimes yeah. even more common is shit like travyon martin or this very situation here, or the guy from not long ago who shot and killed his own son, etc etc. And its more common statistically for the defender to be killed than the aggressor if the defender pulls a gun.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> it is for minor crimes yeah. even more common is shit like travyon martin or this very situation here, or the guy from not long ago who shot and killed his own son, etc etc. And its more common statistically for the defender to be killed than the aggressor if the defender pulls a gun.



Even so I woukd rather live with the consequences of my freedoms than not have them at all


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> Even so I woukd rather live with the consequences of my freedoms than not have them at all



Spoken like someone who knows history.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 20, 2013)

Guriko of Suzuran said:
			
		

> You seem to not understand how this being a human thing works. People were killing since way before there were guns and will continue to do so long after the technology becomes outmoded. Not to mention what do guns have to do with being educated or cultured you non-sequitor using fuck. You are outright stating if you have a gun you cant be educated or cultured. So if Sanjay gupta one of the most educated medical mind son the planet bought a gun he automatically becomes something less. What the fuck are you 8.



And are you incapable of understanding how much guns make killing easier? 



			
				Guriko of Suzuran said:
			
		

> Have you ever been to a gun show? They are the most polite places ive ever been to. I accidently pissed on a guy's leg and he didnt even get mad. You know what he said. "Its no problem sir." Sir. Whens the last time you were called sir?



That's supposed to soothe my soul. If you accidentally shot him, I don't think he'd be so jovial. 



> Thats puts women, children, the elderly, the disabled and the sick at a hell of a disadvantage dont you think. Even ignoring the face to use a taser you have to get within arms reach. Arms reach of somebody physically superior and with a far more harmful mindset than you own.
> 
> Sounds like a terrible fucking idea.



So we should give 5 year olds guns? We should give old people with dementia guns? 



> The pioneers disagree. And gun were intended to kill animals. It just so happens they are pretty damn good at killing people too.



Ak-47s, M-16s, semi automaticks glocks,... those were intended to kill animals? lol


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Mar 20, 2013)

I.T.T We use Military rifles, to compare them to civilian fire arms.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> Even so I woukd rather live with the consequences of my freedoms than not have them at all



I wouldn't. Your right to kill someone if you really want to or play target practice doesn't outweigh 32000 deaths per year. its needless carnage. And you certainly don't have a right to buy a gun with no background check, or the right to oversized ammo clips designed for murdering a whole lot of people.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

LouDAgreat said:


> And are you incapable of understanding how much guns make killing easier?


SO WHAT. Answer the question. If Sanjay Gupta bought a gun he is automatically uneducated and uncultured. You said that. Do you stand by your statement or are you full of shit.




> That's supposed to soothe my soul. If you accidentally shot him, I don't think he'd be so jovial.


As opposed to what accidentally raping his daughter? How far is politeness supposed to go



> So we should give 5 year olds guns? We should give old people with dementia guns?


Strawman. You hypothetical 5 yeard old or 99 year old dementia patient is in reality a single mother of 3. Or a Bachelor in a wheelchair. Or guy with stomach flu. How are tey supposed to defend themselves? a Tazer? Are you fucking high?  Have you even been tazed? It such but it isnt as debilitating as you think. Even if they taze him what then? Tazers have a very short life of use. Your good for maybe 3 - 5 zaps then your fucked. If it takes the police more than 90 seconds to get to your house and save you your shit out of luck. unless you want to try the "Outrun the pissed off criminal" route. In which case better hope your channeling usain bolt and have been working your cardio.

Lets think for a moment. If a Methed up hobo breaks into your grandmother's house and brutally rapes and kills her how would you feel? Now lets pretend that same methed up hobo broke into your grandmothers house and  she shot him dead in the hallway. Now how do you feel?



> Ak-47s, M-16s, semi automaticks glocks,... those were intended to kill animals? lol



No they are evolutions of a tool that was originally intended to kill animals. You see humans have this nifty thing called intellect. They could see that thing beautiful tool they had invented could be used in combat. And doing what humans do they made it better. The same way sticks became morning-stars and sticks became Swords/spears.



Petes12 said:


> I wouldn't. Your right to kill someone if you really want to or play target practice doesn't outweigh 32000 deaths per year. its needless carnage. And you certainly don't have a right to buy a gun with no background check, or the right to oversized ammo clips designed for murdering a whole lot of people.




Republicans appear to disagree with you


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> I wouldn't. Your right to kill someone if you really want to or play target practice doesn't outweigh 32000 deaths per year. its needless carnage. And you certainly don't have a right to buy a gun with no background check, or the right to oversized ammo clips designed for murdering a whole lot of people.



Yeah, that really doesn't have anything to do with me or my right to protect my family, thanks.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

and laws usually evolve with that like in every other developed country where gun laws are significantly more strict than they are here.


----------



## Ceria (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> Fining or placing blame on a citizan for defending his home is unacceptable.  It is the right of the home owner to defend their property and sadly mistakes are made.  I don't think the homeowner made a mistake, he had very little time to react with little information on hand, it's either risk letting the intruder know where you're located, or luckily find out it's a drunk teen in the wrong house.  But anyone coming in at 2a.m. is usually an intruder and I would take my chances shooting into the moving figure.
> 
> To think of punishing this person for defending his home is astonishing to me, had it been a criminal people would pat him on the back and wouldn't have though twice if he had confirmed it was an intruder, but since it was a drunk teen he's under scrutiny.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, either everyone is under scrutiny or no one is.
> 
> He did what he needed to, and I wont blame him for what happen, but I will blame the irresponsible teenager for sneaking out and drinking.  Any home invasion story, good or bad, still confirms why I keep a pistol next to my bed.



this is it, what if it had been an armed burglar, its better to shoot first and ask questions later. That being said i don't think i could shoot to kill someone else, i'd try to injure them.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Wow the anti gun wankers here are just  The man was well within his rights.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> and laws usually evolve with that like in every other developed country where gun laws are significantly more strict than they are here.



What other country has guns penned into thier reason for being?

Legitimate question.

I think russia might.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Vice said:


> Yeah, that really doesn't have anything to do with me or my right to protect my family, thanks.



not when it leads to shit like in this thread more often than it does any real use of it in self defense. everyone in this country would be significantly safer with no guns


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> not when it leads to shit like in this thread more often than it does any real use of it in self defense. everyone in this country would be significantly safer with no guns



Like England and their 500% rise in knife crimes and violent assaults?


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

I guess if someone breaks into your house you're supposed to stop them by having a polite debate about morals and hope that the person that was about to murder/rape/burglarize learns the error of his ways.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Guriko of Suzuran said:


> What other country has guns penned into thier reason for being?
> 
> Legitimate question.
> 
> I think russia might.



no other democracy is 200 years old. ours is outdated in this particular area. when the 2nd amendment was written we were using muskets that just weren't very dangerous and the forefathers were afraid their governmental system would fail.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Vice said:


> I guess if someone breaks into your house you're supposed to stop them by having a polite debate about morals and hope that the person that was about to murder/rape/burglarize learns the error of his ways.



again only 100 burglaries a year lead to a victim dying. 100. that's nothing. you're just a paranoid nutjob


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Guriko of Suzuran said:


> Like England and their 500% rise in knife crimes and violent assaults?



and yet their homicide rate is 1/4 what it is in the US. a bunch of dumb chavs have risen up there but compared to america they cant do shit because, hey, they dont have guns


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> no other democracy is 200 years old. ours is outdated in this particular area. when the 2nd amendment was written we were using muskets that just weren't very dangerous and the forefathers were afraid their governmental system would fail.



At the time of the signing the repeating rifles already existed.

Granted its not an ak but in comparison to muskets it was a fucking monster



Petes12 said:


> and yet their homicide rate is 1/4 what it is in the US



Happens when your significantly smaller  in both land area and population and a homogeneous culture rather than a mixing pot of competing cultures.


Ah I know.

Deunite the states!


----------



## JoJo (Mar 20, 2013)

Read that as _Teen Fatally Shit....._


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> not when it leads to shit like in this thread more often than it does any real use of it in self defense. everyone in this country would be significantly safer with no guns



Yeah, especially those that intend to break into your house to harm you or your family. 

It wasn't this guy's fault that this dumbass teenager stumbled into someone else's house drunk, but his number one priority is to protect himself and his family. Sorry.


----------



## Revolution (Mar 20, 2013)

Moral of the story: * OBEY YOUR PARENTS.*  THEY HAVE YOUR BEST INTEREST AT HEART.


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> again only 100 burglaries a year lead to a victim dying. 100. that's nothing. you're just a paranoid nutjob



Of course I'm a paranoid nutjub if somebody I don't know has broken into my house in the middle of the night. What kind of Disney Land world do you live in?


----------



## PikaCheeka (Mar 20, 2013)

I love how the article makes a big deal about what a great and popular athlete he was.

As if that is supposed to make it more tragic or something.



Klauser said:


> A drunkard at night should make plenty of noises.A normal reaction would be to turn on the lights and see what the fuck is going on.At least 100% of the people here would do this...
> In America though...Either you're feeling terribly insecure or...guns control...



What does turning on the light have to do with it?

He's going to go "Oh, he's just a 16-year-old kid. I'll leave him be"? 16-year-olds are perfectly capable of breaking and entering and killing. 



Freedan said:


> Just because they tend to doesn't mean EVERYONE who breaks in has a weapon.



And what would you do if some random stranger broke into your house between 2 and 3 am? 

Would you take the risk and assume he is harmless? I sure as hell wouldn't.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> And what would you do if some random stranger broke into your house between 2 and 3 am?
> 
> Would you take the risk and assume he is harmless? I sure as hell wouldn't.



Next time somebody breaks into your house dont worry. Hes probably only stealing your shit


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> And what would you do if some random stranger broke into your house between 2 and 3 am?
> 
> Would you take the risk and assume he is harmless? I sure as hell wouldn't.



Apparently do nothing because the only nutcases in these situations aren't the criminals breaking into houses in the middle of the night, but the people who own the house protecting his/her family.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> I wouldn't. Your right to kill someone if you really want to or play target practice doesn't outweigh 32000 deaths per year. its needless carnage. And you certainly don't have a right to buy a gun with no background check, or the right to oversized ammo clips designed for murdering a whole lot of people.



I do have the right to standard sized magazines, standard being 30 rounds for some semi automatic rifles, and upwards of 15 for handguns such as 9mm's.  10 round limits are a made up number that do not prove less violence will happen when enforced.   

Yes, my freedoms do outweigh 32,000 deaths every year, as nothing outweighs a persons freedom, and please learn the difference between magazines and clips, otherwise you sound uneducated on the matter and your opinions is taken less seriously, not to mention you're taken less seriously as a person. 

As a matter of fact, having an opinion or trying to ban something you are not educated on is extremely reckless and irresponsible, like most anti gun politicians.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Vice said:


> Of course I'm a paranoid nutjub if somebody I don't know has broken into my house in the middle of the night. What kind of Disney Land world do you live in?



you're paranoid that it will happen and that you'll be in danger of dying when theres basically 0 chance of that happening, yet just having guns in your house puts your family in significantly more danger.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> I do have the right to standard sized magazines, standard being 30 rounds for some semi automatic rifles, and upwards of 15 for handguns such as 9mm's.  10 round limits are a made up number that do not prove less violence will happen when enforced.
> 
> Yes, my freedoms do outweigh 32,000 deaths every year, as nothing outweighs a persons freedom, and please learn the difference between magazines and clips, otherwise you sound uneducated on the matter and your opinions is taken less seriously, not to mention you're taken less seriously as a person.
> 
> As a matter of fact, having an opinion or trying to ban something you are not educated on is extremely reckless and irresponsible, like most anti gun politicians.



at sandy hook the shooter had to reload only 5x. if his magazines were limited to 10 shots per, he would have had to reload 14x. he killed himself after his gun jammed on the 5th reload. just sayin. 

this is common sense shit and yes people's safety does come before your hobby. this to me is as absurd as if someone said the first amendment guarantees their right to make child porn


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> you're paranoid that it will happen and that you'll be in danger of dying when theres basically 0 chance of that happening, yet just having guns in your house puts your family in significantly more danger.



If there is basically 0 percent chance of this happening then why is it happening?


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> you're paranoid that it will happen and that you'll be in danger of dying when theres basically 0 chance of that happening, yet just having guns in your house puts your family in significantly more danger.



Owning firearms does not put my family in danger, it safeguards them from harm.  You have no idea what you're talking about. 

Of course I know you'll bring up the fact kids getting into their parents guns causes plenty of deaths each year, and I'll tell you it is the parents responsibility to teach their children safe firearm handling practices, and to never touch a firearm if you see one out in the open, inform an adult if you do.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> Owning firearms does not put my family in danger, it safeguards them from harm.  You have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Of course I know you'll bring up the fact kids getting into their parents guns causes plenty of deaths each year, and I'll tell you it is the parents responsibility to teach their children safe firearm handling practices, and to never touch a firearm if you see one out in the open, inform an adult if you do.



doesn't matter, the statistics are 100% in my favor. even if they are properly taught how to handle them. just, what, a week ago? a safety instructor in a gun safety course accidentally shot himself in the head. 

and none of this explains why you're opposed to actually doing background checks, or why you need 30 rounds in your gun before reloading. is your idea of self-defense a shooting spree?


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

I never said I'm against background checks, which makes you a liar, and no evidence proves 10 round magazines makes us safer, and if it doesn't why is having 30 unacceptable.  I own 30 round mags, last time I checked none of them jumped into a gun I owned amd started shooting themselves.


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 still hasn't answered what he would do if somebody broke into his house and endangered the lives of his children. Oh wait, never mind. He lives in fairy tale land where protecting your family is more heinous than the criminal breaking and entering into your house because everyone knows criminals just up and give themselves up without question once they're caught and they _must_ warn you as to whether or not they're carrying a weapon.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 20, 2013)

Not sure how anyone can justify killing someone in this instance, maybe it's an American thing where everyone is trigger happy. If he has enough time to draw his gun he must have a little more time to call the police, I mean that's what they are there for . Where will it end? It's this shoot first ask questions later that spread discontent among Americans but meh I don't care, I enjoy seeing you people suffer


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 20, 2013)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> Not sure how anyone can justify killing someone in this instance, maybe it's an American thing where everyone is trigger happy. If he has enough time to draw his gun he must have a little more time to call the police, I mean that's what they are there for . Where will it end? It's this shoot first ask questions later that spread discontent among Americans but meh I don't care, I enjoy seeing you people suffer



Could be worse. Could be strapping children to bombs in the name of Allah.


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

There's mountains of evidence showing tighter gun control in general means far less homicides. You can see this in any comparison between countries or states. 

ammo capacity is very obviously part of that. look at any shooting, or how common the extended magazines are in chicago


----------



## Petes12 (Mar 20, 2013)

Vice said:


> Petes12 still hasn't answered what he would do if somebody broke into his house and endangered the lives of his children. Oh wait, never mind. He lives in fairy tale land where protecting your family is more heinous than the criminal breaking and entering into your house because everyone knows criminals just up and give themselves up without question once they're caught and they _must_ warn you as to whether or not they're carrying a weapon.



I don't have a gun. I'd call the police. The police would probably be here in under 5 minutes. I'm not really a) that worried anyone will break into my place and b) that even if they did they'd be interested in hurting anyone, since that's about as rare as a shark attack

I'm not the one living in a fantasy


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 20, 2013)

Daz Amazing said:


> Could be worse. Could be strapping children to bombs in the name of Allah.



Mhm. Good Muslims being brain washed by the west is never good, we here in the west should be more careful what we show TV. Everyone wants to be the villain nowadays which is sad.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> I don't have a gun. I'd call the police. The police would probably be here in under 5 minutes. I'm not really a) that worried anyone will break into my place and b) that even if they did they'd be interested in hurting anyone, since that's about as rare as a shark attack
> 
> I'm not the one living in a fantasy



Pete, if you think the police would be at your house in under 5 minutes, you do live in a fairy tail world. Fact is, the guy did what he did to protect his family, even tho I still question why his windows are unlocked. Had this been an adult as opposed to a kid it might not of made a big deal.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> I don't have a gun. I'd call the police. The police would probably be here in under 5 minutes. I'm not really a) that worried anyone will break into my place and b) that even if they did they'd be interested in hurting anyone, since that's about as rare as a shark attack
> 
> I'm not the one living in a fantasy


Average response time is 20 minutes

Have fun with that.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Mar 20, 2013)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> Not sure how anyone can justify killing someone in this instance, maybe it's an American thing where everyone is trigger happy. If he has enough time to draw his gun he must have a little more time to call the police, I mean that's what they are there for . Where will it end? It's this shoot first ask questions later that spread discontent among Americans but meh I don't care, I enjoy seeing you people suffer



You're like the worst troll ever. But anyway if we were trigger happy why is there still a North Korea?


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> I don't have a gun. I'd call the police. The police would probably be here in under 5 minutes.



Great, just enough time for you or a member of your family to be stabbed to death.



> I'm not really a) that worried anyone will break into my place



Okay, so since you're not worried that your house will be broken into then nobody should be worried that their house will be broken into. Guess that makes sense since, according to you, break ins happen 0% of the time. People must just be making shit up.



> b) that even if they did they'd be interested in hurting anyone, since that's about as rare as a shark attack



Rare =/= never happens

All it takes is once, buddy.



> I'm not the one living in a fantasy



Obviously.


----------



## Komoyaru (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> Fining or placing blame on a citizan for defending his home is unacceptable.  It is the right of the home owner to defend their property and sadly mistakes are made.  I don't think the homeowner made a mistake, he had very little time to react with little information on hand, it's either risk letting the intruder know where you're located, or luckily find out it's a drunk teen in the wrong house.  But anyone coming in at 2a.m. is usually an intruder and I would take my chances shooting into the moving figure.
> 
> To think of punishing this person for defending his home is astonishing to me, had it been a criminal people would pat him on the back and wouldn't have though twice if he had confirmed it was an intruder, but since it was a drunk teen he's under scrutiny.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, either everyone is under scrutiny or no one is.
> 
> He did what he needed to, and I wont blame him for what happen, but I will blame the irresponsible teenager for sneaking out and drinking.  Any home invasion story, good or bad, still confirms why I keep a pistol next to my bed.



This, the homeowner was simply defending himself against what he thought might have been an armed burglar at the current time. I'm pretty sure no one would sit around and see who exactly was in their house knowing that it might be someone who's trigger happy.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

Vice said:


> Great, just enough time for you or a member of your family to be stabbed to death.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He doesnt lock his doors and keeps his windows open at night.

Must be canadian


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled police officers are not legally or morally obligated to protect you or your family.  It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family.  That was a Supreme Court ruling, which means even the very government you live under says it doesn't have to protect you, and only you can protect yourself. 

I woukd not trust police to protect my family, especially when the difference between life and death is seconds, the police are only minutes away.


----------



## Lady Hinata (Mar 20, 2013)

I do not believe the shooter should be punished in any way. It was _their_ home, and this boy snuck in their house at 2 in the morning by climbing into the window. Their alarm went off and they shot first. It's completely justified due to trespassing and breaking and entering. 

Only problem is, the kid didn't do it on purpose. 

He was inebriated and had no idea it was his neighbors house. Once that comes out, I'm sure the shooter will feel remorse for doing this to someone who wasn't intending to do anything but probably go to sleep. But again, the shooter was defending themselves from a possible threat. They don't deserve punishment. This is just a case of a severe misunderstanding that unfortunately took the kids life. 

I feel bad for the his family and the life he lost in the process.


----------



## Alicia (Mar 20, 2013)

I'm sick and tired of this debate about gun control.


----------



## josh101 (Mar 20, 2013)

Thank god I don't live in America.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 20, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Thank god I don't live in America.



You don't have to thank god for making a choice about where you want to live.

And it's not like living in England is any better.


----------



## Daxter (Mar 20, 2013)

Terrible. I admit the kid was stupid, but is that so out of the ordinary for teenagers? 

Guns, guns, guns. Now a child is dead and a someone who probably never thought he'd kill now has that on his conscience till the end of his days.A family lost their son and brother, all because of expected teenage stupidity and paranoid, gun-wielding homeowners. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Reminds me of this. (This is pretty gay of me, I know.)


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 20, 2013)

Kid's a victim of his own stupidity.   trying to break into or  the  home

Don't get so drunk that you might accidentally submit yourself for a Darwin award, dumbasses

Would we be blaming the driver of a car if he had been stumbling around on a highway, drunk at night?  The kid chose to drink, and the drinking lead to his impaired state.  Therefore the blame rightly rests on the 16 year old.  

I do feel sorry for the kid's family, and the guy who shot him--as he'll probably be second-guessing the decision for a very long time.  However, his use was appropriate and reasonable.  A willingness to accept responsibility for having shot someone, is part and parcel of gun ownership.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 20, 2013)

Daxter said:


> Terrible. I admit the kid was stupid, but is that so out of the ordinary for teenagers?
> 
> Guns, guns, guns. Now a child is dead and a someone who probably never thought he'd kill now has that on his conscience till the end of his days.A family lost their son and brother, all because of expected teenage stupidity and paranoid, gun-wielding homeowners.
> 
> ...


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Daxter, your views are too idealistic and will never happen, and if were trying to be idealistic here, why can't we live in a world where anyone can own whatever firearm they wish and nothing bad ever happens.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 20, 2013)

Daz Amazing said:


> You don't have to thank god for making a choice about where you want to live.
> 
> And it's not like living in England is any better.



I can go to school without the fear of being shot. I wish you knew this feeling


----------



## Daxter (Mar 20, 2013)

Daz Amazing said:


> The kid isn't stupid. Did you bother to read the article? he was drunk. It's a known fact alcohol impairs your ability to make decisions. Drinking doesn't make him stupid.* It just lead to poor decision making which unfortunately costed him his life.*



That's what I meant by stupid. Teenagers are notorious for bad decision making, and getting drunk in the first place and not travelling home with friends or someone sober in itself is just stupid. Is he stupid generally speaking? I don't know the kid, but I'll say no, giving the benefit of the doubt as I usually do. Was this a stupid thing on his part to do? Absolutely.



Soldaun said:


> Daxter, your views are too idealistic and will never happen, and if were trying to be idealistic here, why can't we live in a world where anyone can own whatever firearm they wish and nothing bad ever happens.



The point is the firearm shouldn't exist in this scenario at all. I think people above me have pointed out though that firearm or not, he was obviously in no position to handle it if he off and shot at the first thing that went bump in the night. He could have called out, flicked on a light, held the gun toward the target if needed and took a millisecond to judge the situation first. I don't think it's too idealistic to ask that only level headed people own guns. There's too many other ways this could have gone, and most of those end with the kid still alive.


----------



## Ae (Mar 20, 2013)

16 and drunk?
If this goes to court, he'll win for trespassing.

EDIT: The parents doesn't even blame the shooter
They know what's up...


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> I can go to school without the fear of being shot. I wish you knew this feeling



Despite what the news media wants you to believe I am willing to wager that most people don't worry about getting shot when they go to school  I know I certainly don't.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 20, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Despite what the news media wants you to believe I am willing to wager that most people don't worry about getting shot when they go to school  I know I certainly don't.



I'd love to have a long debate with you about the violence in America but you'd probably be shot or likely shoot someone so there isn't a real point to it


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

I would expect nothing less from someone who lives in Europe and inherits their irrational fears of firearms.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 20, 2013)

I can't believe some of the people in this thread saying he deserved to be killed. No one deserved to be killed for something like this. The shooter should have had the decency to at least warn him, why? 

BECAUSE HE HAD A FUCKING GUN!

If he warned him he could have at least ascertained what this intruder was about. But no this trigger happy piece of shit unnecessarily kills some kid who makes an honest mistake. 

Fuck this.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

ImperatorMortis said:


> I can't believe some of the people in this thread saying he deserved to be killed. No one deserved to be killed for something like this. The shooter should have had the decency to at least warn him, why?
> 
> BECAUSE HE HAD A FUCKING GUN!
> 
> ...



He fired a fucking warning shot first, how much more do you expect out of someone? 



> The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
> 
> Caleb didn’t stop, and the homeowner fired again, striking and killing the teen, the official said.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 20, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> He fired a fucking warning shot first, how much more do you expect out of someone?



The article didn't mention a warning shot. If there was another article I missed, or if I misread then please point that out for me.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Here ya go.



> The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.


----------



## Daxter (Mar 20, 2013)

^ So doesn't this source make it worse? They conversed, and he still shot the kid?


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Kid never responded dude. Just kept approaching.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 20, 2013)

> The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.



What the hell? That makes it worse. He actually spoke with the kid, could most likely see he wasn't a threat, and STILL shot him?



Chelydra said:


> Here ya go.



Thank you for the link btw.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

ImperatorMortis said:


> What the hell? That makes it worse. He actually spoke with the kid, could most likely see he wasn't a threat, and STILL shot him?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the link btw.



Again the kid kept on coming after the first shot was fired, what else can you do? An intruder keeps approaching after being both verbally warned and a warning shot fired.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 20, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> what else can you do?



Push the obviously out of it kid down the stairs? Probably would have knocked him out, and would have given him a better chance to survive.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Push the obviously out of it kid down the stairs? Probably would have knocked him out, and would have given him a better chance to survive.



Except the owner did not know he was drunk. These situations are not as clear cut as people like to think.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 20, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Except the owner did not know he was drunk. *These situations are not as clear cut as people like to think.*



Fair enough. But I still believe if that the gunman could have handled this better.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Fair enough. But I still believe if that the gunman could have handled this better.



How would you handle a crisis situation where you are awakened from a deep sleep, have to deal with an unresponsive intruder that is ignoring your warnings. You don't get the luxury of evaluating your options with a clear mind. The fact that the owner had the presence of mind to both verbally warn someone and fire off a warning shot before shooting the person suggests that he was rather disciplined despite the sudden situation.

This whole thing was a tragic accident from what we have been presented with.


----------



## Daxter (Mar 20, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Kid never responded dude. Just kept approaching.



Yes because drunken teenagers are life-threatening. :sanji Kid probably wasn't even walking straight. I know the stairs are foreboding when I'm drunk; there's no way that stumbly kid was giving off 'I'm armed and ready to kill a bitch' vibes whilst he traipsed up the steps.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 20, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> How would you handle a crisis situation where you are awakened from a deep sleep, have to deal with an unresponsive intruder that is ignoring your warnings. You don't get the luxury of evaluating your options with a clear mind. The fact that the owner had the presence of mind to both verbally warn someone and fire off a warning shot before shooting the person suggests that he was rather disciplined despite the sudden situation.



Well I would have made warning shots like the man did, and if the person kept coming I would have assaulted them physically before considering shooting them. But I realize that's just me, and it is a lot easier to say what you would do when placed in a certain situation than actually acting out on it. 

But I like to think that the kid would have still been alive if it was up to me.



Chelydra said:


> This whole thing was a tragic accident from what we have been presented with.



Definitely, and I realize I was too hard on the gunman initially.


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 20, 2013)

kid was drunk, if the owner challenged the guy verbally or a simple "Hey!" to the guy he would have realized this...trigger happy or too scared we wouldnt know since the article doesnt say so...but seriously you should say something before firing if its dark...you are defending after all, not attacking 

either way i think the home owner was within his rights but it was a situation that could have been prevented if only he tried shouting at the intruder at first...


----------



## Zhen Chan (Mar 20, 2013)

dummy plug said:


> kid was drunk, if the owner challenged the guy verbally or a simple "Hey!" to the guy he would have realized this...trigger happy or too scared we wouldnt know since the article doesnt say so...but seriously you should say something before firing if its dark...you are defending after all, not attacking
> 
> either way i think the home owner was within his rights but it was a situation that could have been prevented if only he tried shouting at the intruder at first...



They already made an aggressive action by COMING INTO YOUR FUCKING HOUSE


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 20, 2013)

Guriko of Suzuran said:


> They already made an aggressive action by COMING INTO YOUR FUCKING HOUSE



which is why i said the owner was within his rights, right? my point is, this tragedy could have been avoided by both parties...try not going home wasted or at least be sure your target is hostile before firing.


----------



## eHav (Mar 20, 2013)

dummy plug said:


> which is why i said the owner was within his rights, right? my point is, this tragedy could have been avoided by both parties...try not going home wasted or at least be sure your target is hostile before firing.



the kid kept going up the stairs after the warning shot.. i mean, a burglar wouldnt really do that, he would keep away and be as stealthy as possible. specially wouldnt go towards the guy who just  gave out a warning shot. the kid did. yes he was drunk. but the owner didnt know that. it would most likely be some guy out of his mind that could seriously hurt him and his family than some random drunk harmless "teenager"

its unfortunate, but completely justified


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 20, 2013)

eHav said:


> the kid kept going up the stairs after the warning shot.. i mean, a burglar wouldnt really do that, he would keep away and be as stealthy as possible. specially wouldnt go towards the guy who just  gave out a warning shot. the kid did. yes he was drunk. but the owner didnt know that. it would most likely be some guy out of his mind that could seriously hurt him and his family than some random drunk harmless "teenager"
> 
> its unfortunate, but completely justified



i wasnt aware of the warning shot part, not in the article but yeah i agree its an unfortunate event but within reasons


----------



## PikaCheeka (Mar 20, 2013)

Daxter said:


> *Yes because drunken teenagers are life-threatening.* :sanji Kid probably wasn't even walking straight. I know the stairs are foreboding when I'm drunk; there's no way that stumbly kid was giving off 'I'm armed and ready to kill a bitch' vibes whilst he traipsed up the steps.



Not sure if serious or just insanely naive.



Petes12 said:


> I don't have a gun. I'd call the police. The police would probably be here in under 5 minutes. I'm not really a) that worried anyone will break into my place and b) that even if they did they'd be interested in hurting anyone, since that's about as rare as a shark attack
> 
> I'm not the one living in a fantasy



1) Police are rarely anywhere within five minutes. Not everyone has the luxury of living next door to the station.

2) I wouldn't be worried either if I lived in Lalaland like you evidently do.

3) People who break into houses may not normally be interested in hurting someone, but they are usually desperate for money, which means they can be dangerous. Many break-ins are performed by people who are either on drugs or drunk (like in this case), which makes them potentially very dangerous.

I've worked with enough cops to know that generally, people who are drunk or on drugs are significantly more dangerous than those who aren't.


----------



## Raiden (Mar 20, 2013)

Hatifnatten said:


> A drunk teenage retard got shot. The world won't miss him.



Come on man, he's only sixteen years old.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 20, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Kid's a victim of his own stupidity.   trying to break into or  the  home
> 
> Don't get so drunk that you might accidentally submit yourself for a Darwin award, dumbasses
> 
> ...



This isn't a car, it is a gun.

you have plenty of thinking time when holding a gun, so unless the kid stumbling in front the person while he at a shooting range don't make such a ridiculous analogy.

I honestly have no sympathy for drunks but the shooter deserves to be punished on the pure grounds of being a dumbass.


----------



## Rescuebear (Mar 20, 2013)

Unless he can prove the teen was threatening his life then yes he's responsible (which would be hard considering the teen was drunk and unarmed). He murdered someone via sheer stupidity and carelessness. I hope he lives the rest of his life with the guilt.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Recap the kid was verbally warned and had a warning shot fired at him and kept coming.(Because we know he was drunk)



Rescuebear said:


> Unless he can prove the teen was threatening his life then yes he's responsible. He murdered someone via sheer stupidity and carelessness. I hope he lives the rest of his life with the guilt.



Fail  the owner did the reasonable thing to try and prevent the situation and took the action he felt appropriate after both a verbal warning and a warning shot failed. The owner was well within the law and his rights.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 20, 2013)

@Bioness

The shooter wasn't a dumbass.  This falls firmly under appropriate use of firearms.  The car analogy also holds true because we still hold drunk rapists criminally responsible for their actions as well as drunk drivers.  I bet some of the Steubenville Rape crew had had a few drinks too.

A drunk home invader/burglar has no diminished personal responsibility for his or her actions.  You couldn't write better NRA propaganda than the events of this article.  There is absolutely no way the events as described can be twisted in such a fashion as to support an anti-firearms position.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 20, 2013)

I'd also like to know if it is really that hard to just aim for the legs, he supposedly gave a warning shot (calling bullshit on this) so why not shot to wound if the guy had no visible objects to threaten you with?


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I'd also like to know if it is really that hard to just aim for the legs, he supposedly gave a warning shot (calling bullshit on this) so why not shot to wound if the guy had no visible objects to threaten you with?



Shooting to disable is not a sanctioned method of using firearms and you can be held liable for that. Let me see if I can dig up more info. But Im fairly certain that it falls under inappropriate usage of a firearm.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 20, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> Shooting to disable is not a sanctioned method of using firearms and you can be held liable for that. Let me see if I can dig up more info. But Im fairly certain that it falls under inappropriate usage of a firearm.



If it actually does, then I am fucking done with tolerate guns, melt all the fuckers down and make them into cars.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 20, 2013)

Shooting to wound and not kill leaves the defendant open to lawsuits from the attacker.  It is then seen under scrutiny from the law that you were not scared for your life, because if you were infact scared for your life you would have shot to kill.  Thus the attacker after being disabled from your bullet to the leg can now sue you for misuse of a firearm and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon eventhough you were defending yourself. 

While not illegal, you open yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation.  Sad, I know.


----------



## Gino (Mar 20, 2013)

This is why you don't do dumb shit#6,0082.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Bioness said:


> If it actually does, then I am fucking done with tolerate guns, melt all the fuckers down and make them into cars.



The general reasoning from what I am seeing is that shooting to wound indicates you did not fear the threat enough to warrant the usage of deadly force, still looking for credible citations, most seem sketchy so far. But have have not yet found anything that concretely states that its illegal but you will be put under incense legal scrutiny for improper firearm handling and maybe charged accordingly.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 20, 2013)

Soldaun said:


> Shooting to wound and not kill leaves the defendant open to lawsuits from the attacker.  It is then seen under scrutiny from the law that you were not scared for your life, because if you were infact scared for your life you would have shot to kill.  Thus the attacker after being disabled from your bullet to the leg can now sue you for misuse of a firearm and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon eventhough you were defending yourself.
> 
> While not illegal, you open yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation.  Sad, I know.



Ah yes, so that makes total sense now, it is always better to kill them rather than leave them alive for risk of being sued.

BRILLIANT!


----------



## Vice (Mar 20, 2013)

Sorry, if you break into my house and I give you a warning to leave then you better get the fuck out of my house. 

If I warn you to leave my house that you broke into in the middle of the night and you refuse to do so then I am well within my rights to find you a threat to me and my family and I am well within my rights to defend what's mine.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 20, 2013)

How is this the home owner's fault. He was defending his property against an intruder. The kid shouldn't have drunk himself into a stupor.


----------



## αce (Mar 20, 2013)

Dumb kid. Overreaction maybe, but this man isn't a murderer. He had a gun and someone walked into his house at 2 a.m. From the back door. Let's all sit here and pretend we'd have the greatest of reactions.


----------



## αce (Mar 20, 2013)

> The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.



Well if this is true then I'm not even blaming the home owner here. No one instinctively just shoots at the first person they see so I'm actually going to go ahead and believe this. He was drunk out of his mind and the man could not have possibly figured that out in said situation. He warned him. He didn't stop. He fired.

Blah blah the kid was unarmed. Yeah, because at 2 a.m. when someone walks into your house uninvited and doesn't stop after a warning gun shot you have the eyes of a fucking hyuuga and can detect whether or not he had a weapon. I would have assumed he had a weapon because I would have assumed he was a burglar.

Even the most brain dead burglars have weapons/


----------



## Mizura (Mar 20, 2013)

It's sad, but it's not the homeowner's fault either. It's 2 AM and there's an athletic guy who just broke into your home. He is approaching you despite your warnings. You have a few seconds to decide your next step. You've probably never shot a guy before, you're nervous and you're not sure about your aim under these conditions (weren't the lights off?). Since he was on the top of the stairs, aiming at the legs would have been difficult, since he's shooting downwards.

The fact that the kid was drunk doesn't change a thing, in fact drunkards can be the most violent ones.

I'm against use of firearms, personally, but posters here have convinced me that in the U.S., firearms won't be going away easily, and so it is locked in an arms race. This homeowner doesn't know if the kid has a concealed firearm, for example. It's easy for us to make reasonings from our comfy desktops, but you don't have that much time to go through a list of possible scenarios when you're facing a stranger in your home. Instinctively, you assume the worst-case.



> you have the eyes of a fucking hyuuga and can detect whether or not he had a weapon.


lol, exactly. xD


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 20, 2013)

αce said:


> Dumb kid. Overreaction maybe, but this man isn't a murderer. He had a gun and someone walked into his house at 2 a.m. From the back door. Let's all sit here and pretend we'd have the greatest of reactions.



Brother of mine did that once and the dog didn't recognize him.  Nearly jumped him with a baseball bat.  Fortunately he had the good sense to self identify.



> If it actually does, then I am fucking done with tolerate guns, melt all the fuckers down and make them into cars.



Quit pretending to have tolerated them in the first place.

Warning shots are not encouraged, because A)  It's easier to hit center of mass B)  Bullets kill shit  C)  You might have a family member in an adjacent room and intentionally not hitting your intended target.  That's essentially the same as firing into the air, and it is also negligent.  D)  In the case of a hostile target, their natural incentive (to remain alive) after a warning shot is to bum rush you.

You shouldn't have a gun Bioness.  You'd probably use it irresponsibly.


----------



## lacey (Mar 20, 2013)

As much as I feel bad for the kid, and whatever family he has, it's his own fault. He was verbally warned, and was even given a warning shot. 

As other people have stated, it's different when you're sitting at a computer, and have the chance to read, assess, and form an opinion. It's different when you're actually faced with that sort of situation, and you only have seconds to decide what to do. If a drunk (Or any person for that matter) broke into _my_ house at 2am, and I could not immediately recognize the voice or figure, I would not just stand there and attempt to assess the situation. I'd warn, and if they didn't stop and leave, I'd shoot to kill. 

The man was justified. He was protecting his home.


----------



## Rescuebear (Mar 20, 2013)

It different here.
Killing in self defense requires you to prove you were threatened. If you shoot an unarmed drunk its murder, maybe manslaughter. Doesn't matter if it was your house.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 20, 2013)

> D) In the case of a hostile target, their natural incentive (to remain alive) after a warning shot is to bum rush you.



There is also the 21 foot rule police officers use, a person even without a firearm within 6.5 meters is still dangerous even to someone with having a weapon pulled out.



> It different here.
> Killing in self defense requires you to prove you were threatened. If you shoot an unarmed drunk its murder, maybe manslaughter. Doesn't matter where.



I might sound a little raciest here, so forgive me if I offend anyone.

What part of a 6 foot, built blackguy that's broken into your house at 2 a.m. is non-threatening?


----------



## Rescuebear (Mar 20, 2013)

The no weapon and drunk part, if you killed every drunk who walked into the wrong house here it would be a lot, we have a drinking culture. 

And Black wtf? Do you find black people more intimidating than white? Cos I'm white, and you should be well more afraid of white people.

Also did he break in? Thinking it was his own house? Seems unlikely.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Rescuebear said:


> The no weapon and drunk part, if you killed every drunk who walked into the wrong house here it would be a lot, we have a drinking culture.
> 
> And Black wtf? Do you find black people more intimidating than white? Cos I'm white, and you should be well more afraid of white people.
> 
> Also did he break in? Thinking it was his own house? Seems unlikely.



And how the hell was the home owner supposed to know that he was unarmed and drunk? Not to mention ignoring both a warning shot and verbal warning.



> I might sound a little raciest here, so forgive me if I offend anyone.
> 
> What part of a 6 foot, built blackguy that's broken into your house at 2 a.m. is non-threatening?



I would feel threatened by ANYONE who is univited in my home at 2 am even more so if I was startled out of a deep sleep and not thinking clearly because of it.

And some PLEASE edit the title and include this link in the OP so people don't just think the home owner randomly shot the guy without trying to warn him first:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/loudoun-teen-fatally-shot-by-homeowner-identified/2013/03/18/1e8611f8-8fe2-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 20, 2013)

> The no weapon and drunk part, if you killed every drunk who walked into the wrong house here it would be increadable, we have a drinking culture.



How could he tell he was unarmed or that he just stumbled into the wrong house? The teen was potentially dangerous, and threat to the homeowners livelihood. You don't sit and lollygag in these situations, your life is more important then the person endangering it.



> And Black wtf? Do you find black people more intimidating than white? Cos I'm white, and you should be well more afraid of white people.



Just a common stereotype, something that has to be unfortunately factored in.


----------



## Rescuebear (Mar 20, 2013)

Sure i would be too, but i would call the police, not kill him just in case. That's absurd.

Also i find it hard to believe that if he was drunk enough to not even know where he lived then it wouldn't immediately be noticeable in his demeanor.

Is anyone else not bothered by the fact that this guy was ultimately wrong? That he didn't kill a home intruder but his next door neighbor who mistakenly got the wrong house? Who never intentionally did anything wrong?


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Rescuebear said:


> Sure i would be too, but i would call the police, not kill him just in case. That's absurd.
> 
> Also i find it hard to believe that if he was drunk enough to not even know where he lived then it wouldn't immediately be noticeable in his demeanor.
> 
> Is anyone else not bothered by the fact that this guy was wrong? That he didn't kill a home intruder but his next door neighbor who mistakenly got the wrong house?



Average police response time is 20 minutes dude. This particular issue was covered a few pages back.

Also the two families did not know each other or associate so how is he supposed to recognize them?

This whole thing is a tragic accident however the homeowner was within the law to do as he did in the situation.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 20, 2013)

> Sure i would be too, but i would call the police, not kill him just in case. That's absurd.



What, wait 15+ minutes while the thief is making a assault on your family?



> Also i find it hard to believe that if he was drunk enough to not even know where he lived then it would immediately be noticeable in his demeanor.



If you actual read the article, the house was very similar to his own, even sneaks back in the way he got out. The teen wasn't completely wasted he was just stupid and confused the house for his own.

 It would be impossible to asses this situation any further then what the homeowner already did, anything more and he was endangering himself and his family.


----------



## Rescuebear (Mar 20, 2013)

I would wait the 2~5 minutes with my gun ready. 20 minutes? Is your police response time really so bad? And if yes... Why? Especially at 2am, maybe during peak traffic but even then 20 minutes is like... rural response timing.

I wouldn't shoot what i didn't know with exactly these types of scenarios in mind, though probably more because i would be facing charges here if i did. But also because unless I was sure my family was in danger i would wait.

And I did read the article, what I meant was if the guy didn't know it wasn't his house then he at least that drunk. Its probably gonna be noticeable in the first few words he says. Or the smell. Or the stumbling and general confusion at seeing you.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Rescuebear said:


> I would wait the 2~5 minutes with my gun ready. 20 minutes? Is your police response time really so bad? And if yes... Why?
> 
> I wouldn't shoot what i didn't know whith exactly this type of scenario in mind, though probably more because i would be facing charges here if i did.



Police response times are bad due to distance and the fact they can't be everywhere at once. Not to mention having the required personnel on duty at the time also have to factor in if they get lost. Nearest police station for me is about 10 minutes from my house, the nearest fire station is about five. So from the times given it could take anywhere from 15 to 20 minutes for them to reach my place in case of emergancy, assuming they get the route right the first time and assuming they have someone availible AT the station and not out on patrol.


----------



## Rescuebear (Mar 20, 2013)

10 minutes for a regular driver? Or 10 minutes for a speeding police car?


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 20, 2013)

Rescuebear said:


> 10 minutes for a regular driver? Or 10 minutes for a speeding police car?



Probably both, again we are assuming that they are starting FROM the station and not at the ass end of their patrol route.(They have 40 square miles to patrol) Also we have 116 officers to 85,000 people.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 20, 2013)

> I would wait the 2~5 minutes with my gun ready. 20 minutes? Is your police response time really so bad? And if yes... Why? Especially at 2am, maybe during peak traffic but even then 20 minutes is like... rural response timing.



Thats in general, police are not like firemen who standby waiting fires to happen, police patrol the streets looking for crime. The dispatcher has to juggle between cops who are currently busy and the ones nearest you. Rural response time is around 60 minutes honestly, I remember the horror story's from my dad about how police can take up to an hour to arrive down in Kentucky.


----------



## Rescuebear (Mar 21, 2013)

Why would police respondent to something in another state?

So what your basically telling me is that your police are so overrun and thinned out there fucking useless and not even worth ringing?

I have a feeling things are quite a bit different where this happened.


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 21, 2013)

Rescuebear said:


> Why would police respondent to something in another state?
> 
> So what your basically telling me is that your police are so overrun and thinned out there fucking useless and not even worth ringing?



They are not allowed to go out of their jurisdictions even if thie incident is happening right at the "border"

Furthermore until they get there it is your job to defend yourself, property and family.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 21, 2013)

> Why would police respondent to something in another state?



So police don't exist in Kentucky? I am saying police don't always have a fast response time, especially in rural area's.


----------



## Mizura (Mar 21, 2013)

Not enough policemen.
Then people complain that they don't want to pay taxes. :\


----------



## PikaCheeka (Mar 21, 2013)

Bioness said:


> This isn't a car, it is a gun.
> 
> *you have plenty of thinking time when holding a gun*, so unless the kid stumbling in front the person while he at a shooting range don't make such a ridiculous analogy.
> 
> I honestly have no sympathy for drunks but the shooter deserves to be punished on the pure grounds of being a dumbass.



This thread is hilarious.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Mar 21, 2013)

How'd this reach 13 pages?

The kid broke into somebody's house in the middle of the night, broke open a window to get in, tripped the burglar alarm, and the shooter even had the decency to fire off a warning shot.

Intoxicated as he was, he had plenty of opportunity to get out of this situation with his life. The homeowner did nothing wrong.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 21, 2013)

> How'd this reach 13 pages?



That's what I'd like to know.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Mar 21, 2013)

At least this guy gave the kid a warning to stop and get out 

the killing is sad, but given that he completely ignored the warnings the home owner probably thought he had no choice but to defend himself and his family

tragedy all around


----------



## PikaCheeka (Mar 21, 2013)

First Tsurugi said:


> *How'd this reach 13 pages?*
> 
> The kid broke into somebody's house in the middle of the night, broke open a window to get in, tripped the burglar alarm, and the shooter even had the decency to fire off a warning shot.
> 
> Intoxicated as he was, he had plenty of opportunity to get out of this situation with his life. The homeowner did nothing wrong.



Because a gun is involved, someone died, and clearly, the man holding the gun is wrong regardless of law and logic!


----------



## Shock Therapy (Mar 21, 2013)

100% deserved to be shot. even if there was only a 1% chance that a burglar breaking into a home has a gun/lethal weapon, i would still shoot first. all these posts about turning on the lights and shit, you're just asking to be shot/stabbed first. i enjoy my life, i'd much rather not have to get shot or die because of some burglar who may or may not have a weapon.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Mar 21, 2013)

TenshiNeko said:


> It's tragic, but it's the kid's own stupid fault. If some drunk comes climbing in your back window at 2am, he's just asking to get shot. Even if he got the right house, he could've been shot by his own family by doing that.



uhm no.

A drunk person being retarded is in no way asking to be shot.

I think it's terrible that this guy's first reaction was to shoot someone.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 21, 2013)

This is a tragic story highlighting the need for a ban on guns because civilians don't have the common sense or bravery to tackle the issue without firing at harmless drunks.

What's even more concerning is that a drunk guy was able to enter a person's house. And astonishingly no one is mentioning this. I find that weird coming from a society full of people who drive armoured cars as though they're going to be hit by articulated lorries at any time.


----------



## Hitou Nami (Mar 21, 2013)

i dont understand why gun lovers are so scared of background checks, are they afraid they will find out that they really are not capable of handaling a gun


----------



## Roman (Mar 21, 2013)

They say it's because it would breach their second amendment rights. Essentially, if they're not allowed to carry a gun, it's as if they're being denied their constitutional right. What they're ignoring is that the second amendment specifically refers to a "well-regulated" militia. But when regulation is gun-advocates' and the NRA's greatest enemy, I wonder who's actually being more unconstitutional.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Mar 21, 2013)

I do understand that it's the teen's fault.

But really, the neighbor seems harsh. He should have check if the boy has a weapon first or he could have at least shot in the non vital area. I don't think someone whom you haven't seen done bad things at sight like stealing or hostaging deserves to be shot. Sure it was for self defense but at that situation, you're not defending yourself. Guy was armless. 

So much civilians having weapons too. Is it really easy to own gun these days?


----------



## Roman (Mar 21, 2013)

Princess Ivy said:


> I do understand that it's the teen's fault.



How is it the teen's fault he got shot exactly? It's his fault he got drunk and mistook his neighbor's house for his own. But getting shot? That was entirely at the homeowner's discretion. One person can't absolutely control what another does.


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 21, 2013)

How many deaths should it take before people understand that alcohol should be prohibited. It the teen wasn't drunk, he wouldn't have broke into someone else's house in the middle of the night in the first place, and the whole situation would have been avoided.


----------



## eHav (Mar 21, 2013)

Princess Ivy said:


> I do understand that it's the teen's fault.
> 
> But really, the neighbor seems harsh. He should have check if the boy has a weapon first or he could have at least shot in the non vital area. I don't think someone whom you haven't seen done bad things at sight like stealing or hostaging deserves to be shot. Sure it was for self defense but at that situation, you're not defending yourself. Guy was armless.
> 
> So much civilians having weapons too. Is it really easy to own gun these days?



he didnt know if he was armed or not. more often than not, burglars or worse do carry weapons when invading other person's home. and will use them in case they are spotted/caught/cornered.

their standoff was at the stairs of the house. the kid didnt stop after a warning shot and kept going up.
you try hitting someones non vital areas when they are comming up a stair towards you, and you are under a pretty reasonable assumption that the guy can hurt you and your family and might be armed


----------



## Roman (Mar 21, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> How many deaths should it take before people understand that alcohol should be prohibited. It the teen wasn't drunk, he wouldn't have broke into someone else's house in the middle of the night in the first place, and the whole situation would have been avoided.



Indeed. Alcohol is more dangerous than guns. Al Capone wouldn't have killed so many people for it if it didn't exist v_v


----------



## Hitou Nami (Mar 21, 2013)

Tiss and here i thought america was the land of the free, but as it seems these so called gun lovers are enslaved by there own guns, its so pitiful and sad.


----------



## Roman (Mar 21, 2013)

Hitou Nami said:


> Tiss and here i thought america was the land of the free, but as it seems these so called gun lovers are enslaved by there own guns, its so pitiful and sad.



I wouldn't go that far to generalize US gun culture and American mentality. My dad's American and he's rigidly opposed to owning a gun despite being very much a conservative Republican and believes in people's right to defend themselves if necessary. Most Americans are even opposed to assault rifle bans and the only reason it failed was because the Senate is trigger happy.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 21, 2013)

And this is a fatal shooting. If in doubt shoot the invader's legs or arms instead of headshots in total darkness. The house owner is a retarded pussy who needs guardians to help him/her make decisions for him/her.


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 21, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Indeed. Alcohol is more dangerous than guns. Al Capone wouldn't have killed so many people for it if it didn't exist v_v



I'm sure that if we put side by side the number of people Al Capone killed and the number of deaths related to alcohol itself, Al Capone might as well be a grain of sand. It should be far ahead of gun related deaths.


----------



## Dattebayo-chan (Mar 21, 2013)

> The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.





I don't like the sound of this and I think it's disturbing how easily this teen got shot to death.

The home-owner only fired one warning-shot. He could have done more to prevent having to shoot to kill - more warning-shots, locking himself into a room, call the police, etc. The teen was drunk and confused and more warning-shot might have woken him up. Drunk people process things slowly. The home-owner would then also have given himself a bit more time to access the situation. He was probably confused and scared. In my opinion, the home-owner acted rashly and killing was unecessary. No one deserves to be killed for breaking and entering/trepassing/etc. Personally, I wouldn't want a person's death on my consciousness over something like this.


----------



## Roman (Mar 21, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> I'm sure that if we put side by side the number of people Al Capone killed and the number of deaths related to alcohol itself, Al Capone might as well be a grain of sand. It should be far ahead of gun related deaths.



Wait, you were serious??

I can understand why you don't have a high regard for alcohol. I don't drink for the same reasons but honestly, how can alcohol be blamed for people's deaths? This one in particular? Alcohol wasn't made the kill people in the way guns were. It increases the risk, to be certain, but "responsible use" of alcohol doesn't kill. Guns do, whether or not they're used "responsibly" or not.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 21, 2013)

Shock Therapy said:


> 100% deserved to be shot.



While I stand by the owner not being at fault or deserving punishment, the kid didn't _deserve_ to be shot. We don't shoot kids for all of the random mistakes they make. 



Nightbringer said:


> A drunk person being retarded is in no way asking to be shot.



It is a figure of speech. Given the mentality in the US and actually just how people view drunk people or teens in the first place.....It is asking for trouble so to speak. Teen, drunk, nighttime, break and entering......That is a recipe for disaster is basically what is being said. 



> I think it's terrible that this guy's first reaction was to shoot someone.



It really isn't though. Violence should always be a last resort but in these cases it is sometimes the only choice. We are on the outside looking in so for us it is easy to say "it was just an unarmed teen, why shoot?". But this guy doesn't know that. To him it is a criminal who broke into his house who could pose a lethal threat. It is a wise decision to be fully prepared to defend yourself and take action. 



♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> This is a tragic story highlighting the need for a ban on guns because civilians don't have the common sense or bravery to tackle the issue without firing at harmless drunks.



A terrible point you are trying to make. 

1. What exactly here was the guy not being brave? Going out in the dark to confront a potentially lethal threat? Not hiding when someone broke into his house? You could argue that isn't a smart decision but it is certainly brave. 

2. Where exactly does this person lack common sense? You think it is smarter to approach a potentially armed criminal with no way of defending yourself and asking him why he in your house?

So I guess the police are pretty stupid as well since they take guns everywhere to stop crimes and all of that. 

3. You are using hindsight to try and strengthen your argument and that doesn't work. You know he was a harmless drunk but the guy didn't. So it easy for you to look "smart" when you have way more knowledge than the guy hard. Of course even with that knowledge you have failed to achieve looking smart. 



> What's even more concerning is that a drunk guy was able to enter a person's house.



Your first reasonable point. It is odd the guy didn't lock his windows but it could simply be a case of overlooking it. People forget to lock doors all of the time. 



Hitou Nami said:


> i dont understand why gun lovers are so scared of background checks, are they afraid they will find out that they really are not capable of handaling a gun



A background check wouldn't say anything about capability to handle a gun so your point is moot. It would tell you their criminal history and such but not skill with a weapon. 



Freedan said:


> How is it the teen's fault he got shot exactly?



I believe what people are saying is that the situation is the teens fault, and it is. He ended up getting shot so instead of spelling it out people just say it is his fault he got shot. And while there is more to it than that it ultimately is his fault. Without his multiple poor decisions leading up to that point this never happens. 



♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> If in doubt shoot the invader's legs or arms instead of headshots in total darkness.



1. Nobody has perfect aim. Even people who train all of the time can't always hit where they want.

2. If the situation is more reactionary with things like fear, confusion, anxiety and such all playing a part I doubt you stop to think about things like this. You shoot to "stop", period. 



> The house owner is a retarded pussy who needs guardians to help him/her make decisions for him/her.



Seems you are so scared of guns and people defending themselves that you are starting to project your fears a bit


----------



## Vice (Mar 21, 2013)

Nightbringer said:


> uhm no.
> 
> A drunk person being retarded is in no way asking to be shot.
> 
> I think it's terrible that this guy's first reaction was to shoot someone.



His first reaction wasn't to shoot someone. His first reaction was to warn the guy to leave his house. Twice. If the guy doesn't leave then the home owner is well within his rights to defend what's his.


----------



## Roman (Mar 21, 2013)

Vice said:


> His first reaction wasn't to shoot someone. His first reaction was to warn the guy to leave his house. Twice. If the guy doesn't leave then the home owner is well within his rights to defend what's his.



If he had time to warn him twice, he had time to tell the guy was unarmed and most likely drunk. He knew he shot a defenseless person who literally posed no threat to him. That's not defending his property to begin with.


----------



## Vice (Mar 21, 2013)

Freedan said:


> If he had time to warn him twice, he had time to tell the guy was unarmed and most likely drunk. He knew he shot a defenseless person who literally posed no threat to him. That's not defending his property to begin with.



Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, drunk, and you're just going to assume that he poses no threat to you and your family, really? You even warn him and the intruder doesn't leave? Lord forbid this ever happens to you but its really easy to play the hindsight game when you're sitting in front of your computer. 

Stop being stupid, people.


----------



## Roman (Mar 21, 2013)

Vice said:


> Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, drunk, and you're just going to assume that he poses no threat to you and your family, really? You even warn him and the intruder doesn't leave? Lord forbid this ever happens to you but its really easy to play the hindsight game when you're sitting in front of your computer.
> 
> Stop being stupid, people.



I think it's even more stupid to rationalize death to such extent in all honesty. He could tell the guy was unarmed and thus harmless. It wouldn't be an assumption. If he had the time to give off two warning shots, he had the time to tell if he was a real danger. That they had a face off on the stairs only makes the homeowner's case worse.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 21, 2013)

> He could tell the guy was unarmed and thus harmless.





> If he had the time to give off two warning shots, he had the time to tell if he was a real danger.





Oh please, its easy for you to say that because you were not in the heat of the moment.


----------



## Vice (Mar 21, 2013)

Freedan said:


> I think it's even more stupid to rationalize death to such extent in all honesty.



Not rationalizing it, I'm defending his right to protect his family from an intruder.



> He could tell the guy was unarmed and thus harmless.



Really? You know this how? 



> It wouldn't be an assumption. If he had the time to give off two warning shots, he had the time to tell if he was a real danger.



Not two warning shots. A warning, then a warning shot. The home owner isn't required to have a polite discourse to the guy about morals and then patiently escort the intruder out of his own home. 



> That they had a face off on the stairs only makes the homeowner's case worse.



No, it doesn't make the homeowner's case worse. He warned an intruder in his home to leave, if he doesn't, he is well within his rights to assume the person who has broken into his home in the middle of the night and refuses to leave is a threat to him or his family. I don't think you appreciate the fact that the home owner wasn't privy to the same information you have at that moment. It's real easy to sit here and condemn someone while you're sitting in front of a computer screen. 

Again, stop being stupid.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 21, 2013)

Reading these articles it makes it sound like all we have is the shooters word to go on....lovely.


----------



## Solar (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm all for stricter gun laws but the anti-gun people here sound like they're competing for the title of "Wayne LaPierre of Anti-Gun Laws." 

Fucking ridiculous. It's a sad story but the owner did nothing wrong. End of story.


----------



## HaxHax (Mar 21, 2013)

Bernkastel said:


> It's a sad story but the owner did nothing wrong.



Apart from murdering some guy.

Edit: Also, this topic displays replies from a tragic amount of bitter people who never went out. And it's painfully obvious who they are.


----------



## Solar (Mar 21, 2013)

HaxHax said:


> Apart from murdering some guy.



I think I covered that with "it's a sad story."


----------



## Chelydra (Mar 21, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Reading these articles it makes it sound like all we have is the shooters word to go on....lovely.



Forensics will help determine if what the homeowner said is correct or not. Its not like they are not inspecting the scene or anything.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Mar 21, 2013)

Why would he shoot to kill even if it was a burglar ? This dude way overreacted.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2013)

Hatifnatten said:


> A drunk teenage retard got shot. The world won't miss him.


Pretty much. I've been so drunk I felt like a triangle. I have never been so drunk that I couldn't find my own house.



Normality said:


> Why would he shoot to kill even if it was a burglar ? This dude way overreacted.



Because you're supposed to shoot to kill. You don't want to wing someone and have them sue you, which is legal in a lot of states even if the person breaks in armed. And you don't want to leave someone to retaliate.


----------



## Solar (Mar 21, 2013)

Normality said:


> Why would he shoot to kill even if it was a burglar ? This dude way overreacted.



Yes, even if he was a burglar why would he shoot a burglar? It just makes no sense. It's mind-boggling. I mean, it's not as if burglars have ever harmed or killed the people that they robbed before. Burglars are never armed with a gun or with any weapon of some kind to aid them in their robbing so why would someone shoot a person they thought could be a burglar? It's confusing so we should have a group huddle to figure this out and delve into the mind of a mad man like this guy. This mad man that would shoot potential burglars.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2013)

Bernkastel said:


> Yes, even if he was a burglar why would he shoot a burglar? It just makes no sense. It's mind-boggling. I mean, it's not as if burglars have ever harmed or killed the people that they robbed before. Burglars are never armed with a gun or with any weapon of some kind to aid them in their robbing so why would someone shoot a person they thought could be a burglar? It's confusing so we should have a group huddle to figure this out and delve into the mind of a mad man like this guy.


Are you retarded or just slow? Why would you shoot a burglar? Because they're breaking into your house to do God knows what with the possibility of killing your or other people in the house? Because people here have had some pretty awful shit happen when people break into house. 

What the fuck is wrong with people online? Do you all live in gated communities where no one's even had to deal with an armed robbery? (And even if the person has a knife, I'd still say you're right in shooting them because getting yourself stabbed for the sake of fairness is a stupid fucking thing to do)


----------



## Solar (Mar 21, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Are you retarded or just slow? Why would you shoot a burglar? Because they're breaking into your house to do God knows what with the possibility of killing your or other people in the house? Because people here have had some pretty awful shit happen when people break into house.
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with people online? Do you all live in gated communities where no one's even had to deal with an armed robbery? (And even if the person has a knife, I'd still say you're right in shooting them because getting yourself stabbed for the sake of fairness is a stupid fucking thing to do)



I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that my sarcasm was not clear enough for you to get because of the internet.


----------



## EJ (Mar 21, 2013)

No one here actually is...


What type of neighborhood was this?

What did the kid do while he was in the house?

What is the actual story?

No one really knows what the hell happened so..

For someone to honestly say "Why would you shoot to kill"///


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 21, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> A terrible point you are trying to make.
> 
> 1. What exactly here was the guy not being brave? Going out in the dark to confront a potentially lethal threat? Not hiding when someone broke into his house? You could argue that isn't a smart decision but it is certainly brave.



If so brave why not turn on the fucking lights to look the invader in the eyes just to make sure it's actually a person? 



> 2. Where exactly does this person lack common sense? You think it is smarter to approach a potentially armed criminal with no way of defending yourself and asking him why he in your house?



What's so smart about confronting a guy in the dark?  I thought the guy was supposed to be an invader who might be carrying a gun and night vision glasses/goggles?  



> So I guess the police are pretty stupid as well since they take guns everywhere to stop crimes and all of that.



No, the police are seeking out criminals. Sometimes dangerous criminals. I guess like the house owner you can't tell the difference. 



> 3. You are using hindsight to try and strengthen your argument and that doesn't work. You know he was a harmless drunk but the guy didn't. So it easy for you to look "smart" when you have way more knowledge than the guy hard. Of course even with that knowledge you have failed to achieve looking smart.



Not really. I wouldn't approach a guy in the dark and then fire at them, especially if I suspect they're a criminal carrying a gun because chances are they will fire back. I have a brain and my intelligence is average, though some say I have above average intelligence and you might understand why, eventually, in hindsight. 



> 1. Nobody has perfect aim. Even people who train all of the time can't always hit where they want.
> 
> 2. If the situation is more reactionary with things like fear, confusion, anxiety and such all playing a part I doubt you stop to think about things like this. You shoot to "stop", period.



Lucky this retard didn't shoot his own foot off....



> Seems you are so scared of guns and people defending themselves that you are starting to project your fears a bit



Nope, I'm scared of retards.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2013)

Sarcasm needs to be marked online


----------



## PikaCheeka (Mar 21, 2013)

Princess Ivy said:


> I do understand that it's the teen's fault.
> 
> But really, the neighbor seems harsh. He should have check if the boy has a weapon first or he could have at least shot in the non vital area. I don't think someone whom you haven't seen done bad things at sight like stealing or hostaging deserves to be shot. Sure it was for self defense but at that situation, you're not defending yourself. Guy was armless.
> 
> So much civilians having weapons too. Is it really easy to own gun these days?



If you had some stranger walk into your house at 2 AM, ignore your warning to stay away, and keep coming at you, you'd "check if the boy has a weapon first"? How the fuck do you do that?



♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> This is a tragic story highlighting the need for a ban on guns because *civilians don't have the common sense or bravery to tackle the issue without firing at harmless drunks.*
> 
> What's even more concerning is that a drunk guy was able to enter a person's house. And astonishingly no one is mentioning this. I find that weird coming from a society full of people who drive armoured cars as though they're going to be hit by articulated lorries at any time.





♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> And this is a fatal shooting. If in doubt shoot the invader's legs or arms instead of headshots in total darkness. The house owner is a retarded pussy who needs guardians to help him/her make decisions for him/her.





1) Drunks and harmlessness do not always go hand in hand. In fact, it's quite common that they don't.

2) This man DID use common sense in warning the kid twice (once with words, once with a warning shot) before shooting him.

3) IMO, it's common sense to attack a stranger who walks into your house at 2 AM, and using a gun to do it has nothing to do with bravery. We don't know if this guy had a family, but that's irrelevant with your comment. If a guy has 3 kids and a wife to care for, having him get into a fist fight with a possibly armed and dangerous man isn't brave; it's idiotic.

I'd like to see how you would handle this situation though. 



Freedan said:


> If he had time to warn him twice, he had time to tell the guy was unarmed and most likely drunk. He knew he shot a defenseless person who literally posed no threat to him. That's not defending his property to begin with.



Where do you live that random strangers breaking into your house at 2 am just for a cup of tea and a nice chat is a common occurrence?

But I like this belief in this thread that everyone who is armed waves their weapon around. You can't tell whether or not someone is armed just by looking at them.


----------



## lacey (Mar 21, 2013)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Push the obviously out of it kid down the stairs? Probably would have knocked him out, and would have given him a better chance to survive.



What if the kid didn't fall right and broke his neck? Now _that_ could qualify for a murder charge.


----------



## Griever (Mar 21, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> If so brave why not turn on the fucking lights to look the invader in the eyes just to make sure it's actually a person?



Because you give away your advantage...  



> What's so smart about confronting a guy in the dark?  I thought the guy was supposed to be an invader who might be carrying a gun and night vision glasses/goggles?



It's not about being smart or stupid, it's simple necessity. If someone breaks into your home you want to put them down before they can do any real harm. Such as, i don't know, kill you and your family.

And it actually is 'smart' because it's your territory not the invaders. You'd be surprised at how great an advantage that can give you. 



> No, the police are seeking out criminals. Sometimes dangerous criminals. I guess like the house owner you can't tell the difference.



Neither can 



> Not really. I wouldn't approach a guy in the dark and then fire at them, especially if I suspect they're a criminal carrying a gun because chances are they will fire back. I have a brain and my intelligence is average, though some say I have above average intelligence and you might understand why, eventually, in hindsight.



Oh, so you admit that they can do real harm and even kill you.... However, you'd rather just crouch in a corner and pray to god that they just go away rather than use your surroundings to your advantage to get the drop on said suspect putting an end to the potential threat and assuring your life?....




> Lucky this retard didn't shoot his own foot off....



You mean like your so called 




> Nope, I'm scared of retards.



Nah, too easy.


----------



## axellover2 (Mar 21, 2013)

I think a lot of people are looking at this in hindsight with all the information we have now. Someone tripping your alarm at night and breaking your window would frighten anybody. The idea that you should try to find out what the intruders intentions is probably the last thing going through your mind, especially if you live in a shitty neighborhood.

Not everyone can wait on the Police, especially if like me you have other family members. I have little sisters that live with me and no way would I take a chance with their lives. I cant see the homeowner being wrong. I probably would have done the same thing if I felt threatened.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Mar 21, 2013)

Bernkastel said:


> Yes, even if he was a burglar why would he shoot a burglar? It just makes no sense. It's mind-boggling. I mean, it's not as if burglars have ever harmed or killed the people that they robbed before. Burglars are never armed with a gun or with any weapon of some kind to aid them in their robbing so why would someone shoot a person they thought could be a burglar? It's confusing so we should have a group huddle to figure this out and delve into the mind of a mad man like this guy. This mad man that would shoot potential burglars.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Are you retarded or just slow? Why would you shoot a burglar? Because they're breaking into your house to do God knows what with the possibility of killing your or other people in the house? Because people here have had some pretty awful shit happen when people break into house.
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with people online? Do you all live in gated communities where no one's even had to deal with an armed robbery? (And even if the person has a knife, I'd still say you're right in shooting them because getting yourself stabbed for the sake of fairness is a stupid fucking thing to do)





Bernkastel said:


> I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that my sarcasm was not clear enough for you to get because of the internet.





this is what happens when you use sarcasm on sarcasm, the message get's lost sometimes


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 21, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> If so brave why not turn on the fucking lights to look the invader in the eyes just to make sure it's actually a person?



I would assume because he is not stupid. Why make yourself a target to a potentially lethal threat?

Weren't you just calling him retarded and yet you can't figure out why he didn't do something retarded? 



> What's so smart about confronting a guy in the dark?



Fair point depending on your outlook. Sometimes making the first move is the best way. Other times you can let them come to you and have the same results. 



> No, the police are seeking out criminals. Sometimes dangerous criminals.



And this guy had a criminal in his house. The kids intentions weren't criminal but his actions were. Why should this guy have to wait on the police when there is a chance he could be killed or injured? 



> Nope, I'm scared of retards.



Projection at its finest.


----------



## EJ (Mar 21, 2013)

I honestly just can't believe this....

So yeah, I would seriously want to confront the guy, and give him a few seconds to explain himself....

I mean I don't know exactly what I would do if someone broke into my own house. I know I would defend the hell out of myself/family/friends, but I don't actually KNOW if I would use a gun. Still, I just can't pass judgment on this guy with the information that we have, if it's actually true.


----------



## HaxHax (Mar 21, 2013)

Bernkastel said:


> Yes, even if he was a burglar why would he shoot a burglar? It just makes no sense. It's mind-boggling. I mean, it's not as if burglars have ever harmed or killed the people that they robbed before. Burglars are never armed with a gun or with any weapon of some kind to aid them in their robbing so why would someone shoot a person they thought could be a burglar? It's confusing so we should have a group huddle to figure this out and delve into the mind of a mad man like this guy. This mad man that would shoot potential burglars.



Pre-emptive murder. Just in case.

Note to self: When in doubt, shoot 'em out. If anybody so much as sneezes at me, I tell you they're goners. Who knows what kinds of disease they may be infecting me with.


*Spoiler*: __ 



When you're not in imminent life-threatening danger you don't shoot somebody. It's a bad joke that people think self-served capital punishment is OK. The result of decades of self-induced propaganda in the name of so-called "freedom". There's only one place in the western world where people get away with shit like this.




You people are acting like we live in a permanent state of free-for-all combat to the death. You put this man behind bars because he killed a guy. It's called making a mistake. 
The off-chance that the victim was in fact a ninja murderer burglar is no excuse for killing a guy for accidentally entering your house.


----------



## blakstealth (Mar 21, 2013)

How hard is it to clean one's room? Good gawd


----------



## EJ (Mar 21, 2013)

And how do you know there wasn't a perception of imminent life-threatening situation? 

Your example is horrible btw.


----------



## HaxHax (Mar 21, 2013)

Flow said:


> And how do you know there wasn't a perception of imminent life-threatening situation?
> 
> Your example is horrible btw.



Perception is irrelevant. Fact is that there wasn't. If the guy perceived the situation as life-threatening, then his perception of the situation was way off. Anything short of a bullcharge towards the home-owner is no warrant of opening fire. He made a mistake - and committed manslaughter. Hope the fucker will rot in jail.

And it's not an example. It's how you sound defending this kind of vigilantism.


----------



## EJ (Mar 21, 2013)

First of all, perception is always relevant. The guy will most likely not rot in jail, because someone broke into his home.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Mar 21, 2013)

HaxHax said:


> Perception is irrelevant. Fact is that there wasn't. If the guy perceived the situation as life-threatening, then his perception of the situation was way off. Anything short of a bullcharge towards the home-owner is no warrant of opening fire. He made a mistake - and committed manslaughter. Hope the fucker will rot in jail.
> 
> And it's not an example. It's how you sound defending this kind of vigilantism.



Hope a burglar breaks into your home and when you turn on the lights to see if it's an actual threat, the burglar blows your brains out with a shotgun and proceeds to kill your family.


----------



## Impact (Mar 21, 2013)

Quite sad to hear about the teen, you can't entirely blame the shooter he could have had more than one bad break-in in his experience to be extremely alarmed from the intruder and possibly shot him out of fear and had no time to recollect himself before pulling the trigger.


----------



## EJ (Mar 21, 2013)

@ Shock Therapy What the hell?


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 22, 2013)

Shock went to far honestly, and in the process provided proof all gun owners and or supporters are angry at life just waiting to kill someone. 

I believe most the hate aimed towards firearms is the general lack of understanding why we choose to own guns, and why we choose to exercise our rights.  I find it disheartening when people demonize their own countrymen for exercising rights guaranteed to them by our founding fathers.  We are not your enemy nor are our firearms, you don't need to fear us because we practice a hobby that is considered outside your normal social structure. 

The Constitution of my great country did not guarantee individual safety, it guaranteed individual liberty, and the freedoms that liberty grants far outweighs the potential consequences.  I would rather live in violent liberty than peaceful oppression.


----------



## Vagabond (Mar 22, 2013)

Wow 16 pages.

Firing a gun with the intent to kill should be the very last option. But then again the homeowner had limited time and info to base his reactions plus it was dark so he went with the most logical option to him. Just a very tragic accident.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 22, 2013)

Yeah not an accident, anyone who says it is one is wrong by the pure definition of it.


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Yeah not an accident, anyone who says it is one is wrong by the pure definition of it.



Your too intent on creating a crime where one does not exist, your a solution without a problem.  You don't even understand half of what you're saying and your ideological beliefs blind you to the realities of this world.  When you have such blind faith your eyes cannot see what is infront of you, only what is behind you.  

It's such single minded beliefs that create the worst leaders, leaders that don't care for the truth, only advancement of single minded agendas regardless of the casualties they leave in their wake.  It is people like you that stand on the graves of the dead screaming it's our fault when a mirror would suffice.  I feel sorry for you and I pity your belief system for it's brokenness was not created singlehandedly but by a group of people who you surround yourself with that believe the same thing. 

Logic is your enemy, and a blindfold is your friend.


----------



## Nighty the Mighty (Mar 22, 2013)

♥ Comatose ♥ said:


> What if the kid didn't fall right and broke his neck? Now _that_ could qualify for a murder charge.



This is bullshit.

Why would it qualify for murder because this guy defended himself with a simple push but not when he pulled a gun and shot him?

There is something wrong in you seeing it that way.


----------



## Gino (Mar 22, 2013)

50% of the people in this thread have never had their shit broken into or  been robbed confirmed.



Petes12 said:


> CALL. THE. POLICE.
> 
> this is exactly why no one should have a gun


In some areas THE POLICE DON'T DO SHIT!!


Freedan said:


> FOOL! *Police can't be relied on to protect you!* U NEEDZ UR GUNS TO DEFEND URSELF!!!!!


They can't......


Petes12 said:


> basically you're an idiot who justifies murder on the flimsiest of flimsy pretenses at self-defense.


Hit's you with logic calls him an idiot, how does it work.........


Petes12 said:


> cyphon i didnt say call the police if someone was trying to kill you. although thats still what you should do. if you have a burglar in the house and your response is 'get a gun and shoot him' instead of 'call the police' you're a fucking psychopath


I'd rather be a psychopath than a naive fuck.


Bird of Paradise said:


> Moral of the story: * OBEY YOUR PARENTS.*  THEY HAVE YOUR BEST INTEREST AT HEART.



lol so cute.


----------



## HaxHax (Mar 22, 2013)

Shock Therapy said:


> Hope a burglar breaks into your home and when you turn on the lights to see if it's an actual threat, the burglar blows your brains out with a shotgun and proceeds to kill your family.



Actually, I have been face to face with a burglar, in my home. Nobody died. Because I don't live in the land of muh guns where you can legally murder people for trespassing.

If you shoot people as a precaution, how do you people ever go outside? You must be scared shitless, since your have no way of telling who might try to kill you.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 22, 2013)

HaxHax said:


> If you shoot people as a precaution, how do you people ever go outside? You must be scared shitless, since your have no way of telling who might try to kill you.



Terrible example. 

Someone breaking into your private property shows ill intent. I am not sure you will be able to tell the difference regardless if I explain more so I will leave it at that.


----------



## HaxHax (Mar 22, 2013)

Ill intent? Like stealing your TV?


Is that punishable by death in the US?


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 22, 2013)

HaxHax said:


> Ill intent? Like stealing your TV?



Hard to say. Could be to steal your stuff, could be to kill you and your family, could be for kidnapping or could be for rape. In this specific story we got what I assume is a very rare case of someone breaking in by accident with no ill intent. 



> Is that punishable by death in the US?



There is no one answer for this question because of how you word it. Punished is the word I am talking about and thinking specifically of this story. The kid wasn't really being dealt a punishment. It was the guy making the decision he thought best in the situation. Should the kid have died for breaking in by accident? The answer is no. Was the guy wrong for taking the actions he did? The answer is also no. In hindsight we can say he was wrong but that isn't how life works. You don't always get all of the facts.

The saddest thing here IMO is that the guy did more or less take the right course of action. The reason we can even talk about it being right is because of how nasty the world is and how bad people can be. If we lived better as a whole, people wouldn't be worried about defending themselves and people breaking in and things of that nature. 

Just think about this story from the reverse side. Lets say the kid was a criminal with a gun and the guy turns on the lights and asks what is going on and he is the dead one in this story. He looks kind of dumb for doing that. 

So there may not be an answer that is 100% right, but there are responses to this that are just plain wrong. Such as calling the guy retarded or saying he deserves punishment.


----------



## Mithos (Mar 24, 2013)

Is it too much to ask that you look to see if the intruder is actually a threat before you shoot him?


----------



## Crowned Clown (Mar 24, 2013)

Whoever said hindsight nailed it.



Terrible situation, but that is a terrifying situation for anybody and people can be trigger happy in a situation like that.


----------



## Goud (Mar 24, 2013)

To all of you who think it's the kid's fault... I shake my head to you. Sure, it was dumb and he was asking to be mistaken for a burglar, but even then. A single 16 year old enters and the first thing you do is fatally gun them down? That's a bit rigorous if you ask me. Could've taken his time to assess the situation before pulling the trigger.


----------



## Vermin (Mar 24, 2013)

jeez it was an accident

when someone breaks into your home you either
a, shoot their ass
or b, hide and call for help

too bad the guy did the former

i mean for fucks sake its in the middle of the fucking night and this person ignores your warning and keeps coming closer and closer to you? it’s highly obvious some of you have never experienced a burglary or been involved in a heated situation with an intruder. grasp the situation? How much na?ve can you people be? the guy was making himself look like a threat and the man has every right to defend his home and family. I seriously doubt any of the people here would try to “rationalize” if they were caught in the heat of the moment.


----------



## Xiammes (Mar 24, 2013)

> Is it too much to ask that you look to see if the intruder is actually a threat before you shoot him?



Considering most people who break into peoples houses are desperate and dangerous, it is too much to ask.



> A single 16 year old enters and the first thing you do is fatally gun them down? That's a bit rigorous if you ask me. Could've taken his time to assess the situation before pulling the trigger.



1) It didn't matter that he was 16 years old, he is was 6 foot, 165 pound male, he was grown, you also act like 16 year olds aren't capable of crime
2) No one said the kid deserved to die, but this was entirely his fault.
3) You don't chit chat with a intruder, that would get you injured or worse dead
4) The teen was verbally warned to leave and warning shot was fired, but the teen kept on advancing


----------



## Soldaun (Mar 25, 2013)

Even when provided with overwhelming logic they still don't understand, it's always the person who owns the gun that is at fault reguardless of the situation they are put in.  It's not a matter of the man being wrong, but a matter of demonizing firearms owners.  The modern elementary school curriculum, if you could call it that, paints an extremely liberal picture of firearms owners. 

I on the otherhand will enjoy thoroughly teaching my children to shoot


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 25, 2013)

Matto-sama said:


> Is it too much to ask that you look to see if the intruder is actually a threat before you shoot him?


Not sure, is it too much to think before asking a question?


----------



## Solar (Mar 25, 2013)

The pro-gun control posters here make the sane gun-control posters here look bad.


----------



## Sasori (Mar 25, 2013)

I'm so glad this kid died.

I just like people dying.


----------



## Gino (Mar 25, 2013)

Sasori said:


> I'm so glad this kid died.
> 
> I just like people dying.


----------

