Homeowner shoots, kills intruder

[Bloodshot Scott]

I'll agree with you dirk and so does probably 99% of the British public. Although I respect all views on this matter I personally feel gun ownership should be a privelege held by the police and the army and maybe school campus/bank security guards. In the UK it's extremely rare for an innocent person to get killed by a gun, those that wish to go through the lengthy and risky process of acquiring one (normally a crappy modified one at that) are normally bank robbers or gang members who wish to take out other gang members, people caught with guns face lengthy jail terms so criminals think twice about whether they want one or not. I know I or my friends/family might get beaten or in a rare case stabbed over here (there has also been a clampdown on knive ownership) but virtually no chance of being shot.

Secondly I don't see much case for it being a defensive mechanism, this is only the case if you draw your gun first and take out the robber before he gets you. The guy in this story was lucky and he woke up, but how often does a homeowner shoot dead a robber in comparison to how often a robber/serial killer shoots dead an innocent victim, I think you'll find more innocents die than criminals when guns are legally available.

Lastly people here say that they are law abiding citizens and need guns to protect themselves from 'criminals', however I think the line between stable and unstable is rapidly deteriorating. How many people of late have gone from seemingly law abiding citizens to mass gun killings in the blink of an eye, those affected by divorce, those who have lost their homes, those who have lost all their money, those who have lost their jobs, kids being bullied at school the list is endless. Anyone in a moment of anger and rage is capable of anything and you put a gun in their reach in can quickly turn from a defensive weapon to an offensive and with the economy and society (ie broken homes) the numbers of those depressed and angry is rapidly increasing. Just a few names that come to mind are:

Hastings Arthur Wise (Killed 4 over losing his job)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_Arthur_Wise

Marcus Wesson (Killed 9 of his daughters whilst the police stood outside)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Wesson

Standard Gravure shooting (Shooter with a long history of psychiatric illness kills 9 inc himself)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Wesbecker

Binghamton shootings (Angry worker kills 14 inc himself)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiverly_Voong#The_perpetrator

Chai Vang (6 people dead over a deer stand)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Vang

Steven Sueppel (Himself, Wife and Four kids over money probs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Sueppel


There's loads more (I went through about 10% of the below list) again by seemingly law abiding citizens on innocent people so forgive me if I see little positives over a solitary case where the robber gets killed before he can do any damage. I recently posted two stories about a guy who went on a killing spree over stolen beer and another guy who killed a load of people over the way his eggs were cooked This is just my opinion and I won't try and talk anyone else out of theres. :2 cents:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_mass_murderers

The scum face lengthy sentences here on this side of the pond as well.Our jails really are packed right now, as far as the statistics presented to me detail.

 

[Hot Mega]

Anyone in a moment of anger and rage is capable of anything and you put a gun in their reach in can quickly turn from a defensive weapon to an offensive and with the economy and society (ie broken homes) the numbers of those depressed and angry is rapidly increasing. Just a few names that come to mind are:

Hastings Arthur Wise (Killed 4 over losing his job)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_Arthur_Wise

Marcus Wesson (Killed 9 of his daughters whilst the police stood outside)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Wesson

Standard Gravure shooting (Shooter with a long history of psychiatric illness kills 9 inc himself)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Wesbecker

Binghamton shootings (Angry worker kills 14 inc himself)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiverly_Voong#The_perpetrator

Chai Vang (6 people dead over a deer stand)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Vang

Steven Sueppel (Himself, Wife and Four kids over money probs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Sueppel


There's loads more (I went through about 10% of the below list) again by seemingly law abiding citizens on innocent people so forgive me if I see little positives over a solitary case where the robber gets killed before he can do any damage. I recently posted two stories about a guy who went on a killing spree over stolen beer and another guy who killed a load of people over the way his eggs were cooked This is just my opinion and I won't try and talk anyone else out of theres. :2 cents:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_mass_murderers

U...those cases while tragic are reflective of the fact that we live in a violent world which will produce victims of all types no matter what.

In this case, it is a much bigger crime that where it's possible for a person and his or her family to prevent victimhood by defending themselves, a g'ment has prevented it and those people become victims.

Frankly, being shot is in most cases a much more preferable way to be taken out than say being bludgeoned or hacked to death with some blade or ax.:2 cents:

How does Santa Claus avoid being shot though?

Because he comes to give and not take?:dunno:

 

[Ulysses31]

Frankly, being shot is in most cases a much more preferable way to be taken out than say being bludgeoned or hacked to death with some blade or ax.:2 cents:

The way I see it would Seung-Hui Cho been able to to bludgeon/hack 32 people to death, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold 13 people, George Jo Hennard 23 people, James Oliver Huberty 21 people, Patrick Sherrill 14 People, Jiverly Antares Wong 13 people, Mark O. Barton 12 people, Joseph T. Wesbecker 8 people, Gian Luigi Ferri 8 people, Omar Thornton 8 people and the many countless others. Cho and Harris were puny little shits that would've been overpowered before that managed to stab anyone. Unless you have your gun in your hand ready to shoot you stand more chance of survival if your attacker has a knive or bat and I've never heard of a mass killing by a baseball bat. Would most of these people even have gone on a killing spree if all they had at their disposal was a knive and the people they hated were big strong guys?

I'm not trying to criticise America or any of your amendments but it actually pains me when so many people are killed (families lose their sons/daughters/husbands/wives/fathers/mothers) when an individual flips over what is often something so trivial, and I'm not even American. ps There was 152 innocent people killed in that list I made above, by just 11 nutcases over things that shouldn't be a matter of life and death. :2 cents:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

The way I see it would Seung-Hui Cho been able to to bludgeon/hack 32 people to death, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold 13 people, George Jo Hennard 23 people, James Oliver Huberty 21 people, Patrick Sherrill 14 People, Jiverly Antares Wong 13 people, Mark O. Barton 12 people, Joseph T. Wesbecker 8 people, Gian Luigi Ferri 8 people, Omar Thornton 8 people and the many countless others. Cho and Harris were puny little shits that would've been overpowered before that managed to stab anyone. Unless you have your gun in your hand ready to shoot you stand more chance of survival if your attacker has a knive or bat and I've never heard of a mass killing by a baseball bat. Would most of these people even have gone on a killing spree if all they had at their disposal was a knive and the people they hated were big strong guys?

I'm not trying to criticise America or any of your amendments but it actually pains me when so many people are killed (families lose their sons/daughters/husbands/wives/fathers/mothers) when an individual flips over what is often something so trivial, and I'm not even American. :2 cents:

You're comparing apples and oranges. A country (England) that is like 1/6 the size of America is just avoiding those facts.

 

[Ulysses31]

You're comparing apples and oranges. A country (England) that is like 1/6 the size of America is just avoiding those facts.

I don't see the relevance unless you mean you have more people that can be killed :dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

The way I see it would Seung-Hui Cho been able to to bludgeon/hack 32 people to death, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold 13 people, George Jo Hennard 23 people, James Oliver Huberty 21 people, Patrick Sherrill 14 People, Jiverly Antares Wong 13 people, Mark O. Barton 12 people, Joseph T. Wesbecker 8 people, Gian Luigi Ferri 8 people, Omar Thornton 8 people and the many countless others. Cho and Harris were puny little shits that would've been overpowered before that managed to stab anyone. Unless you have your gun in your hand ready to shoot you stand more chance of survival if your attacker has a knive or bat and I've never heard of a mass killing by a baseball bat. Would most of these people even have gone on a killing spree if all they had at their disposal was a knive and the people they hated were big strong guys?

I'm not trying to criticise America or any of your amendments but it actually pains me when so many people are killed (families lose their sons/daughters/husbands/wives/fathers/mothers) when an individual flips over what is often something so trivial, and I'm not even American. ps There was 152 innocent people killed in that list I made above, by just 11 nutcases over things that shouldn't be a matter of life and death. :2 cents:

My point is...in life, there's death and victims. Some of it accidental, some of it deliberate and some of it malicious.

You can't eliminate the prospect of others creating victims. I don't care about the quantity in each episode you cite. Just one is a tragedy and if one is a tragedy it would likely happened no matter what.

Since outlawing firearms won't eliminate the prospect of criminals using them, I am far more supportive of allowing individuals the means of protecting themselves.

 

[Ulysses31]

Since outlawing firearms won't eliminate the prospect of criminals using them, I am far more supportive of allowing individuals the means of protecting themselves.

Again this is dependant on you pulling your gun out before they do and 9 times out of 10 they'll beat you to it, they're criminals it's their job And like I said, someone buys a gun for protection and something bad happens to that person that gun can quickly change purpose. :2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

Again this is dependant on you pulling your gun out before they do and 9 times out of 10 they'll beat you to it, they're criminals it's their job And like I said, someone buys a gun for protection and something bad happens to that person that gun can quickly change purpose. :2 cents:

And??? You still haven't made the case there of a person not preferring to have a firearm over not having one in those situations.

9 times out of 10...some people would be happy with those odds under some circumstances.

Who knows what would happen as a firearm guarantees nothing. The person who has to defend their life isn't thinking about statistics when it's their life and family's versus that of some scum trying to end them.

 

[jvice]

I'm very torn on the gun rights issue. On one end, a lot of innocent people get harmed or killed by them. Not only that, but in most home-invasion scenarios the homeowner gets shot by their own weapon because they don't really know how to use it. So on that note, they should be a bit more controlled than they are.

But the main reason I support the right to bear arms is because of the original intention of the US government when enacted. It is not to protect oneself from one another or to so we can go hunting. It is the right to protect yourself from your government or any other government that tries to invade.

Militias played an important part during the early time of the US, so citizens needed to have easy access to guns. The founders of the constitution gave us these rights because they just overthrew the government who controlled and oppressed them. That would be the British for non-history buffs.

from wiki: [George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."]

So it is not really surprising that a majority of British people today do not support gun rights. Maybe because the British government has seen what happens when they let their people have guns. Remember, back then most Americans considered themselves British. So while it is good that there are less deaths by shootings in the UK, it is too bad they cannot have some means to defend themselves from their government if it becomes tyrannical.

These are crazy times and we may need a means to defend ourselves and families if worst comes to worst. For example, that was the only way any kind of law and order was held in some neighborhoods in New Orleans after Katrina hit, because there were little to no real police. Looters were everywhere and people had to protect their property and lives. I don't see how they could have done that without a gun.

Besides, what if there's a zombie apocalypse? I know... I know... machetes don't run out of ammo. whatever.

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm very torn on the gun rights issue. On one end, a lot of innocent people get harmed or killed by people.

Fixed it for you. "Guns" don't kill a single person. They don't have brains. I know what you mean but that perspective is the fundamental flaw in the case against firearms. The perpetuation of the notion that "guns" are bad. As if the elimination of "guns" will solve for why people kill each other.

Not only that, but in most home-invasion scenarios the homeowner gets shot by their own weapon because they don't really know how to use it. So on that note, they should be a bit more controlled than they are.

I don't know what the statistics are and I would love to see something citing what you say. Most people who own firearms for protection are fairly skilled with using them...well, maybe not but at least they tend to practice and familiarize themselves in the us of them. Most of their ineptness likely would come from attitude. Allot of people don't put themselves in the position of having to put someone down if comes to that..therefore they don't know how to respond. But the solution for a person owning a "gun" with below average skill with it is not removing his/her right to own it and at least try to protect themselves.

 

[Ulysses31]

And??? You still haven't made the case there of a person not preferring to have a firearm over not having one in those situations.

9 times out of 10...some people would be happy with those odds under some circumstances.

Who knows what would happen as a firearm guarantees nothing. The person who has to defend their life isn't thinking about statistics when it's their life and family's versus that of some scum trying to end them.

There's two sides to that though. The same law that allows you to get a gun to defend your home may also allow someone to get a gun who ultimately wants to rob your home. There are plenty of burgularies in the UK and very few result in death or even serious injury for the homeowner. And again unless you are up all night gun in hand chances are the robber will be ready to fire before you are, I hear far more about people being shot in their own homes than people shooting robbers in their homes, on balance criminals will always win in a society where guns are readily available. If someone robbed me in the UK with no gun as is the norm I stand half a chance of fighting them off, if they have a gun and I don't or can't get to mine it's game over for me. And you're just looking at the family in their home, what about women who see their husbands and kids who see their fathers go off to work to do menial work in a plant only to find out they got gunned down by a 'friend' who was upset about being dismissed, or parents who see their kids murdered at school by some kid who was being bullied by a different kid.

Where my brother works now a number of people have been laid off, I mean they literally show up for work as usual and are suddenly told they are no longer needed and they go home in tears. If that person had a gun at home and anger sets in I'd be worried they'd come back to the workplace and gun down my brother as well as their bosses because they still had a job. I guess what I'm saying is you can't only look at guns being used in one environment like the home and ignore the fact it could be used to devastating effects (and has) in other places like the workplace or schools etc. I'd not be surprised if someone went to Kabul and got shot but not at the brewery around the corner from me. :2 cents:

 

[Hot Mega]

There's two sides to that though. The same law that allows you to get a gun to defend your home may also allow someone to get a gun who ultimately wants to rob your home. There are plenty of burgularies in the UK and very few result in death or even serious injury for the homeowner. And again unless you are up all night gun in hand chances are the robber will be ready to fire before you are, I hear far more about people being shot in their own homes than people shooting robbers in their homes, on balance criminals will always win in a society where guns are readily available. If someone robbed me in the UK with no gun as is the norm I stand half a chance of fighting them off, if they have a gun and I don't or can't get to mine it's game over for me. And you're just looking at the family in their home, what about women who see their husbands and kids who see their fathers go off to work to do menial work in a plant only to find out they got gunned down by a 'friend' who was upset about being dismissed, or parents who see their kids murdered at school by some kid who was being bullied by a different kid.

Where my brother works now a number of people have been laid off, I mean they literally show up for work as usual and are suddenly told they are no longer needed and they go home in tears. If that person had a gun at home and anger sets in I'd be worried they'd come back to the workplace and gun down my brother as well as their bosses because they still had a job. I guess what I'm saying is you can't only look at guns being used in one environment like the home and ignore the fact it could be used to devastating effects (and has) in other places like the workplace or schools etc. I'd not be surprised if someone went to Kabul and got shot but not at the brewery around the corner from me. :2 cents:

Criminals don't obey laws (again with the no pun).:o Just like illegal drugs...people who want 'guns' to commit crimes will get them no matter what the laws are as long as there are 'guns' and drugs in our universe.

In this case, innocent people ought not be left defanged and defenseless by the g'ment.

 

[Ulysses31]

Criminals don't obey laws (again with the no pun).:o Just like illegal drugs...people who want 'guns' to commit crimes will get them no matter what the laws are as long as there are 'guns' and drugs in our universe.

In this case, innocent people ought not be left defanged and defenseless by the g'ment.

Maybe that's where the UK and US differs, we expect our government to protect us and not allow us access to weapons we can use to hurt one another or take justice into our own hands. And I agree that anyone who really wants a gun can get one but over here it's normally some modified rubbish that breaks after one use and those that often use them tend to use them in gang wars or bank robberies rather than in burglaries, muggings or other personal disputes. Each to their own I guess :glugglug:

 

[Hot Mega]

Maybe that's where the UK and US differs, we expect our government to protect us and not allow us access to weapons we can use to hurt one another or take justice into our own hands. And I agree that anyone who really wants a gun can get one but over here it's normally some modified rubbish that breaks after one use and those that often use them tend to use them in gang wars or bank robberies rather than in burglaries, muggings or other personal disputes. Each to their own I guess :glugglug:

Expect the g'ment to protect you? Do so at you're own peril. If you think about it, that's a logistical impossibility. The only thing the g'ment can do is show up after you're dead and tape off the area.

This is what the g'ment can do for you after you've been attacked.

 

[Ulysses31]

Expect the g'ment to protect you? Do so at you're own peril. If you think about it, that's a logistical impossibility. The only thing the g'ment can do is show up after you're dead and tape off the area.

This is what the g'ment can do for you after you've been attacked.

Like I said that's the difference between the UK and US. You aren't allowed to use any excessive force on any intruder that enters your home in this country, you face prison if you do. The police say it is their job to protect the citizens, not saying it's right but that's the law of the land. ps We don't use those white lines here either :1orglaugh

 

[Hot Mega]

Like I said that's the difference between the UK and US. You aren't allowed to use any excessive force on any intruder that enters your home in this country, you face prison if you do. The police say it is their job to protect the citizens, not saying it's right but that's the law of the land. ps We don't use those white lines here either :1orglaugh

I don't get that. Does British citizenry come with a cop in every home or something?

How are they supposed to be there to protect you from an intruder coming in the middle of the night to make you watch your wife and daughter be raped while you wait to be butchered afterwards? All the while poor Ulysses sits there bound by law against defending himself.

Do the bad guys tip the cops off over there before they do crimes and see if they can pull it off before the cops show up?

 

[BlueBalls]

I don't get that. Does British citizenry come with a cop in every home or something?

How are they supposed to be there to protect you from an intruder coming in the middle of the night to make you watch your wife and daughter be raped while you wait to be butchered afterwards? All the while poor Ulysses sits there bound by law against defending himself.

Do the bad guys tip the cops off over there before they do crimes and see if they can pull it off before the cops show up?

If it's in self defence under current UK law it would be perfectly justifiable to wound or even kill an individual who enters your home unlawfully with the intent of stealing or harming those within.

You would expect to be investigated in order for those dealing with the case to get an overall picture of how the incident occurred. For example, if you were found to have shot this individual in the back as they were fleeing the scene you would be prosecuted. But if the case could be made that they were coming at you (entry wound from the front by either a gun shot or a knife wound) or anyone else living within your home then you should expect to not be prosecuted.

At least I think that's how it works currently.

 

[meesterperfect]

In this case if the burglar did get physical or was armed with anything that could be used as a deadly weapon the shooting was justified.

If it was a case of just encountering a single burglar in your home whiile you are armed it now gets a little more complicated.
In that case do you have the right to shoot?

Usually not.

How do you detain someone at gunpoint and use the phone at the same time without making yourself vulnerable?
Or do you just tell him to leave and hope he doesn't come back?

It all boils down to reasonable imminent danger which is very complicated and is up to a judge or jury to interpret.

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505.html

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-faq/1361-jury-instructions-dealing-justifiable-homicide.html

http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/justifiable-homicide/

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Good for the homeowner. One less criminal in the world to worry about.

 

[Trident1]

Again this is dependant on you pulling your gun out before they do and 9 times out of 10 they'll beat you to it, they're criminals it's their job

Yes because all criminals got to a "criminal bootcamp" where they learn the fine art of trick shooting.




Most criminals simply don't know how to shoot, they hold the gun sideways (which is the incorrect way to handle a handgun) and fire off multiple shots(if the gun is loaded or operable) without hitting anyone.

A friend of mine does the IPSC matches. With his 9mm Glock 19 he could drop a criminal(s) before that guy had a chance to respond.


Criminals are stupid.