Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homeowner Charged for Shooting Intruder
myfoxatlanta.com ^ | 9/11/2009 | Staff

Posted on 09/11/2009 4:50:07 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA

LITHONIA, Ga. (MyFOX ATLANTA) - A Lithonia homeowner who shot a man who allegedly tried to burglarize his home will face charges. The shooting happened Thursday morning on Gadwall Circle in Lithonia. Police said it appeared that the suspect was outside of the house.

"It came in through here went through the garage, hit the electrical panel, went through the bathroom and lodged in the wall," said Eric Thomas of the bullet that hit his home after a neighbor shot at an alleged intruder.

The shooting happened Thursday morning when police said the burglar entered a house located a couple of doors down from where Thomas lives.

Police said the unidentified homeowner interrupted the burglar and apparently shot him as he fled.

DeKalb County police said the homeowner who shot the suspect was charged with aggravated assault because the shots were fired outside of the home.

Investigators said the homeowner was taken to jail.

(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxatlanta.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
UN-FREAKIN-BELIEVABLE!
1 posted on 09/11/2009 4:50:07 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

What is so unbelievable? The fact that the homeowner was charged? Or the fact the homeowner was stupid enough to fire his weapon outside his home?


2 posted on 09/11/2009 4:59:38 AM PDT by LiberConservative (OneBigAssMistakeAmerica)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberConservative

Morally, it is wrong to charge him......even those in the story see that, but apparently you do not:

“We got laws that say certain things, but morally I don’t think he should be charged because he was protecting his home and this subdivision,” said Thomas


3 posted on 09/11/2009 5:02:56 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

With my exceptionally slow dial-up connection I wasn’t able to read the entire article, but from what I’ve seen, the homeowner’s rights to self-defense disappeared once the burglar was fleeing.

In almost all (or all) states you can use deadly force only in the event of immediate fear of serious injury or death. That’s Homeowner Defense 101.


4 posted on 09/11/2009 5:04:35 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

UN-FREAKIN-BELIEVABLE!

The first fifteen minutes of the Atlanta evening news is usually devoted to body bag journalism. Home invasions have become an everyday occurance.


5 posted on 09/11/2009 5:07:45 AM PDT by True Grit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
Actually, In Texas you can a shoot a fleeing burglar if he has your stuff in his hands, because the law allows deadly force to protect your stuff.

So if you ever get burgled in Texas, put the TV remote in his dead hands before the cops get there. Or a potted plant. Whatever.

Morally I agree with killing a fleeing burglar, because what you are doing is protecting his next victim from possible death or injury, and if he's burgling your house, it is reasonable to assume that you weren't the first and won't be the last.

I find it ludicrous that many laws serve to protect the individual, but not the overall society. Shooting a fleeing perp serves the entire society, not just the burgled victim.

6 posted on 09/11/2009 5:15:16 AM PDT by I Buried My Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
I think there's a lesson here for everyone and that lesson is call Glaser Safety Slugs.


7 posted on 09/11/2009 5:15:23 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (Are they insane, stupid or just evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberConservative

De Kalb County is possibly the most liberal county in Georgia, with Democrat percentages in national elections at a 3-1 margin, even wider than those in adjacent Fulton County, where most of the city of Atlanta is located. It is also a majority black county.


8 posted on 09/11/2009 5:16:36 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LiberConservative

The homeowner was not stupid. But your answer is foolish and stupid both.


9 posted on 09/11/2009 5:17:54 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt
I think there's a lesson here for everyone and that lesson is call Glaser Safety Slugs.

Better yet, practice, practice, and practice some more until you can perform the only acceptable form of gun control - hitting what you're aiming for.

Also, a shotgun with #4 buck works great and doesn't over-penetrate.

10 posted on 09/11/2009 5:19:57 AM PDT by SpeedRacer (Where's your records, B-HO? What are you hiding?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

You would think there would be real criminals that law enforcement in this area could be going after.


11 posted on 09/11/2009 5:21:07 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
Shooting a fleeing perp serves the entire society, not just the burgled victim.

Not to mention the savings in court costs and the price of incarceration.

12 posted on 09/11/2009 5:21:42 AM PDT by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Amen!


13 posted on 09/11/2009 5:23:59 AM PDT by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
You would think there would be real criminals that law enforcement in this area could be going after.

Yeah, those skateboarders and octogenarian shopping scooter scofflaws are real trouble.

14 posted on 09/11/2009 5:26:02 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns

My point was that the response of the poster of the article (a feeling of incredulousness about the law’s response to the situation) just wasn’t applicable.

I had a fleeing thought that Texas might be the exception but other states’ maintain that one must be IMMEDIATE fear for one’s life or serious injury before using deadly force.

I disagree with your suggestion that the law ought to permit shooting a fleeing felon. Our judicial system maintains that citizens are not judges and executioners and I agree with that stance.


15 posted on 09/11/2009 5:26:54 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

One would think!

But now we have a community organizer running the country, Holder as AG (dismissing charges against armed thugs at pollig stations), so is this really a surprise?

Welcome to the new Amerika folks, where homeowners are charged for defending their property.


16 posted on 09/11/2009 5:30:35 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns

If I am ever on a jury where the homeowner shoots a fleeing burglar, I will probably vote not guilty. Now if he shoots him when he is down, then that is a different matter.

Also, I will not shoot at a fleeing person if the background is not pretty safe. The fact that a bullet hit another house with innocent people inside is not a plus factor. Unfortunately the “law” does not have a spank this guy for stupidity punishment. Punishing the homeowner as if he is a criminal is clearly unwarranted. He did not start the dance, it was a scumbag who entered his house. If he is convicted he loses the right to defend himself in the future.

Well he will be able to purchase a crossbow, sword, compound bow, build a potatoe gun, etc.


17 posted on 09/11/2009 5:33:10 AM PDT by 2ndClassCitizen (The socialists always vote for a free lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Really?

Authorities have DISCRETION in these cases.

Is it unreasonable for a homewowner who feels threatened by a burglar to come outside of his home to defend everything he has worked his entire life for? If you think that is unreasonable, then let’s just agree to disagree.


18 posted on 09/11/2009 5:33:38 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Yes, I know that prosecutors have discretion in these cases and sometimes they may conclude that the homeowner, in a state of distress under the circumstances, might have shot an invader in the back inside or outside of the homeowner’s dwelling. They may choose to not prosecute given the individual’s stress situation.

Nevertheless, I guess you and I will just, as you put it, agree to disagree about shooting someone who is fleeing. Mind you, I am not saying you are unreasonable—hell, it must be extremely stressful to have your privacy invaded and face loss of your precious possessions; I’m just siding with the law


19 posted on 09/11/2009 5:51:07 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

I would really like to hear all the circumstances in this event. If the guy was down and the homeowner capped him in the ass, that is wrong.

But, in the heat of the situation, if they guy was focused on the perp and not fully aware I can’t find a lot of fault other than carelessness. If the perp was shot in the doorway and falls outside how is that judged?


20 posted on 09/11/2009 5:53:22 AM PDT by doodad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
but other states’ maintain that one must be IMMEDIATE fear for one’s life or serious injury before using deadly force.

Not all. In Florida someone who shot a retreating perpetrator just won his resultant court case.

If someone just did something threatening to my life I am pretty sure I am going to feel IMMEDIATE fear for my family's safety if that person is anything but a tiny dot running rapidly away. Or in jail, or dead, or being tending by a half dozen parmedics and cops on my front lawn. All of those might make me feel safer. The guy being outside the house instead of in? Not so much.
21 posted on 09/11/2009 5:53:39 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doodad

And maybe that is the lesson. Swear you shot him in the house and he ran outside and went down. Blame it on a lower caliber or something.


22 posted on 09/11/2009 5:55:11 AM PDT by doodad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; All

I’m an advocate of an “Open Season Doctrine” similar to the “Castle Doctrine” but which would apply out side of the home. Pull a gun and openly threaten peoples lives, and it is now open season on you, and no charges can be brought against anyone who may kill you. Period.

This would bring down the crime rate immensely, and IMO is common sense (not to mention the moral thing to do).

(admittedly, that would not apply in this case, as I do not believe the burglar was armed......but nevertheless, I always side with law abiding citizens over perps unless the case is so egregious it warrants otherwise)


23 posted on 09/11/2009 5:55:57 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Lessons:
- Keep your firearms safe but accessable
- Practice “point shooting”
(you don’t need ammo to practice raising your weapon into position and “then” check your sight view, repeat and adjust as necessary)
- drag the bastard back inside if you need to


24 posted on 09/11/2009 5:58:13 AM PDT by G Larry ( Obamacare=Dying in Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doodad
If the perp was shot in the doorway and falls outside how is that judged?

I think it is a pretty gray area. Is he running away to go get that rifle in his car? I am going to feel pretty dumb if I held my fire only to find that now he is 20 yards away hiding behind a car and has a rifle while I just stood there on my porch watching him get it. And the amount of time it takes a fleeing man to turn and shoot you can be a split second. What if someone gets two steps from your patio and then decides to toss a bullet back at you. If they miss you and hit your wife in a bathrobe just behind you I would say you might feel regretful you did not shoot them while they were still running away. It is a gray area for sure. But the idea that it is instantly dumb to shoot just because the guy is out the door is clearly nonsense.
25 posted on 09/11/2009 5:59:04 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Even if your life is in danger, you NEVER, EVER have the right to risk the lives of your neighbors...period! (I don't give a hang about the perp)
26 posted on 09/11/2009 5:59:58 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Barack Obama - The wrong man, at the wrong time, for the wrong country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
"...Our judicial system maintains that citizens are not judges and executioners ..."

I disagree a little.

A jury, who does not have intimate knowledge of a criminal act, hears testimony from others who do have intimate knowledge.("I saw the suspect running away", for instance).They use that information to arrive at a decision.

The homeowner, though, witnesses the crime and is intimately aware of the nature of it. He does not need the testimony of others. You might even consider him an expert. Thus, when he shoots the fleeing perp he KNOWS the perp is guilty beyond a doubt.

Thus, I cut the homeowner some slack.

27 posted on 09/11/2009 6:03:22 AM PDT by I Buried My Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
Sorry old guy but in Texas, shooting a fleeing burglar is not just self defense but to be sure that you can retain your property and help him see the error of his ways.
28 posted on 09/11/2009 6:03:29 AM PDT by Deaf Smith (I spent all my money of women and booze. The other rest I just plain blew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

OK, I stand corrected, but I’ll bet the homeowner who won that case in Florida was fighting an aspect of state law.

Two other considerations:

First, are you willing to shoot a fleeing intruder and risk spending the next 20 years in jail based upon his not-so-immediate presence.

Second, even if you win the case in court, are you willing to lay out the big bucks for your legal defense?


29 posted on 09/11/2009 6:05:33 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: G Larry; All
- drag the bastard back inside if you need to

I hear alot of people say this but disagree with it vehemently. This will be easily seen by Forensic Experts and then your ass will be in prison for attempting to cover something up. If you feel your life is in danger, do what you must. Worry about the consequnces later.
30 posted on 09/11/2009 6:06:55 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; All

This is an excellent post, not written by me, but which I keep handy. It pretty much sums up my thinking and addresses some of the points you raise:

I’ve read through the thread here, and I have seen some things with which I agree, and some I don’t. The one sure thing that has been written here is that no plan survives first contact. It will always be different than you envisioned it to be.

To those who have written that it is not worth shooting someone over $25.00, I ask you this. At what level of money in your pocket is it worth shooting somebody? $100? $500? Do you carry more than $500 in your pocket? Next question for you. How do you know that the bad guy is going to stop bothering you once you give him money? Perhaps you just emboldened him to take more of whatever you have. Maybe he thinks you didn’t really give him all your money. Maybe he wants your watch and your jewelery too. Maybe he will want you to perform an unnatural sex act on him. I’m sure that will draw some snickers, especially coming from me, but I remember years ago when I read in the paper about a guy being carjacked and forced to go down on his carjacker. How far are you going to go so as not to have to shoot him?

Here is my point of view. It is not about how much money I have. It is about someone invading my space and trying to take what I have by force or threat of force. I give a lot of money, time, and other possessions to people freely, but I will not let someone take it. It is that simple. And I am not talking about some drunken stumblebum begging a few bucks so he can buy his next bottle of Thunderbird. Those requests usually come in the form of asking for money to buy food. I have bought food for people like that in the past. But that takes being able to read a person, and even then there is the chance that someone may be playing you for a fool to get close to you. You always need to keep your guard up and be ready for anything.

But the guy who comes to take what I have by force or intimidation? No. He isn’t getting anything but the bum’s rush, and if he gets nasty, he is going to be met with violent hostility. I will be in fear for my life, you can be guaranteed of that. There was a comment made about the worth of a human life, or something to that effect in the early part of this thread. If someone is going to have so little regard for his own life that he will attack strangers (and this is an attack), then why am I responsible to see that he is not hurt? The answer is, I am not. He is engaging in a risky business, and so he is the one who bears both the risk and the responsibility for the consequences to his person.

And pulling your gun does not mean you have to shoot someone with it. I know. I have been there. Twice. It is an amazing thing to look at someone whose attitude has just been radically adjusted with the knowledge that you now have a gun in your hand and appear to be ready to use it. If that doesn’t scare them into retreating, then you are genuinely in danger of your life, since they obviously have no regard for their own.

In the end, it is all about me. I very rarely say that, but if I am in a confrontation with someone who is intent of relieving me of my worldly possessions, I have a judgement to make. I am a steward of the things God has given me. I have the responsibility to determine how best to use those things. Giving them to someone truly in need is one thing, but again, someone who tries to take them by force is going to go home very unhappy, if indeed he ever makes it home again. Rich has pointed out, and rightly so, that there may be an accomplice. Situational awareness is very important, and you need to be paying attention to what is going on around you. I also happen to think that open carry is a huge deterrent to these kinds of things. People who pull this stuff aren’t looking for a fight, they are looking for an easy score. My gun visibly displayed on my hip tells the world that I am armed, and that I probably know how to use that arm, and that I am not afraid to use it. Really, who wants to mess with someone like that? I know I don’t.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention escalation. I will escalate someone right off the planet if that is what it takes to go home alive and safe. I am not going to be standing there worrying about what some DA or some judge is going to say about what I did. I am going to be concentrating on surviving. All the rest of that stuff can be sorted out later. It really wears me out to see people worrying about escalation. You only need to worry about escalating a situation if you started it, at least in my not so humble opinion. If and when someone confronts me, I am going to respond in such a way as to demonstrate that I am capable of escalating things to the point of his demise in order to protect myself and my family. But the big key here is not to get into situations where it might look like you started something. And the easiest way to do that is, don’t start stuff!

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-carry-145/42115-when-draw-page-3.html


31 posted on 09/11/2009 6:09:22 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68
Even if your life is in danger, you NEVER, EVER have the right to risk the lives of your neighbors...period!

Then this will preclude the use of firearms WITHIN the home too!

There was a recent pice on television about how many walls different calibers went through. For many of them, it was 7 or 8 walls, so your advice would in fact preclude the use of firearms within the home.
32 posted on 09/11/2009 6:15:00 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

33 posted on 09/11/2009 6:16:24 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Interesting post with some valuable information but it does not adddress the matter of shooting someone in the back.

And that last paragraph about escalation contains dangerous information. I once had a district attorney explain that even though you may not start something, if any point you escalate it you lose all your self-defense rights. This blustering of sorting things out later could result in jail time, heavy fine, and of coure, those legal fees.


34 posted on 09/11/2009 6:22:09 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Interesting post with some valuable information but it does not adddress the matter of shooting someone in the back.

And that last paragraph about escalation contains dangerous information. I once had a district attorney explain that even though you may not start something, if any point you escalate it you lose all your self-defense rights. This blustering of sorting things out later could result in jail time, heavy fine, and of coure, those legal fees.


35 posted on 09/11/2009 6:23:08 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Sorry for the double post. I point the finger at the guilty computer.


36 posted on 09/11/2009 6:23:59 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
Florida calls it their "Stand Your Ground" law. What we don't know from the article is if the fleeing burglar turned back towards the victim. In that split second where the homeowner might fire, the victim could turn back and continue to run, thus taking the bullet in the back. But I'd call that a justified shoot, at least under Florida law.
37 posted on 09/11/2009 6:27:24 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("The President has borrowed more money to spend to less effect than anybody on the planet. " Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
but it does not adddress the matter of shooting someone in the back.

You are correct; that post does not address these things. But another poster did. What if the perp turnes around quickly and pops off 2 shots and hits your wife or kids through a window? What if he runs to the car and gets a rifle while you are standing there watching him run away for fear of being prosecuted?

I am sick of the "law and order" guys who have no idea that in these situations there are a MILLION possibilites and only a split sedcond to make these decisions upon which your life hinges, along with that of your family.
38 posted on 09/11/2009 6:28:39 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Forgot to add: the law does not (and cannot) acknowledge all of these MILLIONS of possibilites, so the “law” as it is, is usually an insufficient arbiter in things such as this.


39 posted on 09/11/2009 6:30:57 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Then this will preclude the use of firearms WITHIN the home too!

There was a recent pice on television about how many walls different calibers went through. For many of them, it was 7 or 8 walls, so your advice would in fact preclude the use of firearms within the home.

I draw no distinction between the two. The same backstop rules apply whether you fire from inside or outside the home.

40 posted on 09/11/2009 6:32:41 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Barack Obama - The wrong man, at the wrong time, for the wrong country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
UN-FREAKIN-BELIEVABLE!

Why? He's lucky he didn't kill his neighbor.

While I would agree that he shouldn't be charged with shooting at a perp, even if the perp is outside the house, he should most certainly be charged with negligence in the fact that his missed shot went through his neighbor's house.

41 posted on 09/11/2009 6:32:48 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (The townhalls were going great until the oPods showed up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberConservative

>>Or the fact the homeowner was stupid enough to fire his weapon outside his home?<<

Ever watch those films of the guns on US carriers shooting down Japanese planes during WWII. Watch how, even after the plane has hit the water, they keep firing. When fighting for your life or security, you don’t always think rationally. You are in fight or flight mode. Looks like this guy, like the fellas on those carriers, was in “fight” mode.

His action was not stupid. It just looks like that to those of us who were not there and not “feeling” what he was feeling.


42 posted on 09/11/2009 6:36:18 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: doodad
"If the perp was shot in the doorway and falls outside how is that judged?"

In Wisconsin you as the homeowner would be put on trial for murder. If he falls into your house the self defense clause comes into play.

43 posted on 09/11/2009 6:37:32 AM PDT by sniper63 (Silent and stealthy - one shot - one kill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Yep. Being too careful about using “unnecessary” force just got four of our marines killed in Afghanistan.


44 posted on 09/11/2009 6:37:49 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68
I draw no distinction between the two. The same backstop rules apply whether you fire from inside or outside the home.

That is an almost impossible burden to place on someone whose front door has been kicked in at 2 AM be several armed thugs.

Let's see, gain proper sight alignment for each one and with the proper angle of tragectory, and at the same time think what is behind each one.

THAT is a reasonable standard while you are being attacked?????

You must be joking. That standard guarantees to good guy dies 100% of the time.
45 posted on 09/11/2009 6:40:33 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
That is an almost impossible burden to place on someone whose front door has been kicked in at 2 AM be several armed thugs.

Let's see, gain proper sight alignment for each one and with the proper angle of tragectory, and at the same time think what is behind each one.

THAT is a reasonable standard while you are being attacked?????

You must be joking. That standard guarantees to good guy dies 100% of the time.

No one said self defense was a piece of cake. The fact remains...you DO NOT have any right whatsoever to endanger your innocent neighbors just because you are under attack. If you can not reconcile this during a 2 am intrusion, you should probably not consider firearms as part of your self defense plan...or at least move out to a farm house away from any neighbors.

46 posted on 09/11/2009 7:16:47 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Barack Obama - The wrong man, at the wrong time, for the wrong country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

I don’t know for sure, but I heard that Glaser Safety Slugs will penetrate most bullet-proof vests because the pellets are so small. Also they have the advantage to allow your defense attorney tell the jury that you were using “safety” bullets by choice, so nobody would get badly hurt...so it wasn’t really your fault that the robber happened to die.


47 posted on 09/11/2009 7:27:14 AM PDT by Hiddigeigei (quem deus vult perdere prius dementat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68

Unless you have a metal backstop in your home, you will almost always be endangering someone outside to some point if you fire a firearm inside your home.

Mitgating the danger is all one can do; mitigating the danger to ZERO Percent is impossible (unless you want to be dead from home invaders). I say this because in any firefight there will be necessary movement, and it is impossible to see the terminal trajectory of every every possible shot if fighting off 2 armed atackers in the middle of the night.


48 posted on 09/11/2009 7:28:28 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA
Unless you have a metal backstop in your home, you will almost always be endangering someone outside to some point if you fire a firearm inside your home.

Mitgating the danger is all one can do; mitigating the danger to ZERO Percent is impossible (unless you want to be dead from home invaders). I say this because in any firefight there will be necessary movement, and it is impossible to see the terminal trajectory of every every possible shot if fighting off 2 armed atackers in the middle of the night.

That's exactly why you prepare ahead of time and not try to figure it out once it has already happened. Know your house, the surroundings, your weapon, and your ammo. The guy in this story f-ed up royally because a round ended up in a neighbors house. There's no excuse for that...period...end of story. Responsible firearm handling does not disappear just because your life is in danger. If you still don't get it, tell me how you would react if a neighbor was being invaded and ended up shooting and killing one of your family members (God forbid). Would you be so understanding of their carelessness?

49 posted on 09/11/2009 7:42:36 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Barack Obama - The wrong man, at the wrong time, for the wrong country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LiberConservative

I guess all those times instructors have told me I was responsible for every shot I fired was correct.

Who’d a thunk it.

Seriously, I wonder if the police are charging him due to a complaint from the neighbor.


50 posted on 09/11/2009 7:52:13 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA /Patron - TSRA- IDPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson