Posted on 08/18/2007 11:31:59 AM PDT by lowbridge
A Long Island man defending his girlfriend and two pit bulls turned the tables on two home invaders, shooting one of the intruders dead, police said.
The two armed men stormed into the Bay Shore home of Robert Stone, 20, just after 10 p.m. Wednesday, demanding cash and drugs, Suffolk County cops said.
Stone told the men he needed to put his pit bulls away and led the burglars to his bedroom, where he grabbed a loaded rifle and fatally shot Lawrence Walker, 37, of Queens Village.
At least one of the intruders returned fire. The second suspect, who may have been wounded, fled, cops said.
The dogs, Lulu and Jake, were both hit during the shootout, but were expected to survive.
Neighbors said they have long suspected drug activity at the Penataquit Ave. house.
Cops said no charges had been filed against Stone but the investigation was continuing.
Nuts, I don’t want any part of this one.
Good grief!
Me either.
Poor dogs. Hope they’re OK.
L
So much for having pit bulls for protection ;-)
“demanding cash and drugs” “2 Pitbulls”. OK, that makes this too obvious. This isn’t a home owner defense deal, this is a double criminal activity.
He should have had a cat. :-)
Even criminals get to defend themselves. If he's not been convicted of any felonies, he would even have kept the rifle legally.
Of course now that he's used A GUN, to defend himself, he's in Big DooDoo, this being New York, and too close to NY City.
Hopefully the other one bled out somewhere, and is now out of the gene pool like his comrade.
Queens Village is a hefty distance from Bay Shore.
Of course this is true, and I never indicated that I would deny them self defense.
I have also sat in a courtroom when a robber explained that he didn't want to kill the guy he was robbing, but the guy fought so hard that he (the robber) thought he was going to be killed, and it was just self defense.
Did the court buy that line?
No, the jury convicted him of second degree murder, the most serious charge against him.
“Nuts, I don’t want any part of this one.”
I’ll take a crack at it. I think this is a good thing. Criminals shooting other criminals is very good for society. This saves the taxpayer the cost of a trial and saves other innocent victims that these two scumbags could have been out robbing. Now the cops are investigating this drug dealer. If he would have just been robbed and the scumbags left him, he most likely would not have reported this since he’s a criminal. Now he’s on the cops radar.
So what do we have? One dead scumbag, one bleeding scumbag who may be dead or may have to go to the hospital to get patched up. In which case, he’ll be caught and arrested for murder (his fellow scumbag killed while committing a felony with a weapon) and attempted robbery. And we have a third scumbag who is now on the cops radar as a drug dealer and maybe they can get some evidence on him to get him off the street.
Yes, this is a good story indeed. It would not have happened if one scumbag did not decide to take out the other two scumbags.... with a firearm.
the only victims here are the pitbulls.
I also have no objection to violent and dangerous criminals getting dead by whatever means.
I do have a concern that drug dealer criminals will try to manipulate the law to hide behind Honest Joe Sixpack's right to defend his home, and a leftie bleeding heart commie politician will ride to the rescue with a "reasonable" gun control law that will be sure to "prevent" such abuse in the future.
Said law will, of course, screw Honest Joe Sixpack, and be ignored by dope peddlers nationwide, as intended.
I can see the headlines now: "Navy Patriot endorses drug dealers having guns." or "Navy Patriot seeks to protect home invasion thugs."
Some choice.
“I can see the headlines now: “Navy Patriot endorses drug dealers having guns.” or “Navy Patriot seeks to protect home invasion thugs.””
I think the reason that headlines like this would even exist is because of the general publics lack of exposure to firearms. I think most of them get the fact that the 2A applies to all of them. What I think a lot of them can’t get past is their fear of firearms. They fear what they do not understand. I think that if more of the general public were exposed to gun safety and training courses and got to fire weapons, then headlines like this would not phase them.
I suppose the general public would really be afraid of my “radical” interpretation of the second amendment. From my interpretation, it means that we as the militia should have access to the same type of firearms that the military has. In other words, law abiding citizens should be allowed to have fully auto M-16’s etc to be properly prepared to perform our duties as part of the militia. How can we be a well regulated militia without the proper arms to keep and bear?
Thanks for listening to my rants... : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.