Skip to comments.KS:UPDATE: Police arrest man they say shot home intruder
Posted on 02/14/2014 5:58:01 AM PST by marktwain
WICHITA, Kan. -- The man who police say shot and killed a home intruder early Monday morning has been arrested.
Officers were called to the 2300 block of North Poplar shortly before 4 a.m. Monday. Officers say a 35-year-old woke up to a noise, then opened his bedroom door and saw a man inside his home. The men began fighting and shots were fired.
(Excerpt) Read more at kake.com ...
If they can't be trusted with a firearm, they need to remain in jail, or take a dirt nap.
Criminalization of all sorts of activity or inactivity is out of control.
The story says this guy was a felon, due to a robbery conviction.
This may have just been a case of criminals killing criminals.
It is a crime.
OK we DO agree on common sense gun legislation, so they did they right thing.
Felons lose their rights to own a gun. He had a gun. Good Arrest.
Thanks for killing dirtbag #2, by the way.
Indeed - if you can’t be trusted with the means of self-defense, you can’t be trusted to be free among law abiding people.
Complete BS. Charge the police with kidnapping, unlawful detention, and official oppression.
“Even released felons have a right to protect themselves.
If they can’t be trusted with a firearm, they need to remain in jail, or take a dirt nap.
Didn’t see that he was a felon in possessionof a firearm. Still though...you should have a right to protect yourself against home intrusion.
If they haven’t been convicted then it doesn’t apply, but since they would now have to admit to a felony crime if they were to register now that time has run out to register, the 5th says they don’t have to.
There’s your catch 22 for the govt.
In that case, the law is an ass, and needs to be changed. God gave man the right to self defense. If a man can't be trusted to have a firearm, he needs to remain in jail.
At some point, the debt to society has to be paid, and the person returned to normal civil life. Either that, or they need to take a dirt nap, if they can't be returned to civil society.
Every man, felon or not, has the right, given by God, enumerated in the Constitution, to self defense.
Felons know they can keep blackpowder guns. Guy that does landscaping for me has an old barfight felony from the 80s. He keeps a replica Colt Peacemaker in his truck and in winter can carry a variety of blackpowder guns concealed. NFA, GCA, and FOPA does not address antique or blackpowder guns. They are NOT firearms. However, they may be “weapons” in some states.
I believe convicted felons may possess black powder weapons. A cap and ball revolver would make an adequate home defense weapon.
If I were on the jury I'd spring him.
If I had a chance to sit on this jury (naturally having lied my ass off about being impartial, etc.), I’d hold out until doomsday for acquittal if this was a righteous shoot.
“The Law You Won’t Be Told”
If they had fair and true sentences for the crimes then I would be willing to look at that. With murderers pleading guilty to lesser charges and being out in a few years or robbers, burglars and assaulters getting a slap on the wrist, I don’t think so.
I’ve said the same thing here in Alberta. They’re not allowed to have firearms and I ask why not? I said the same logic you did there and people here think I’m nuts.
In that case, the law is an ass ...
Absolutely agreed, JRF. Mr. K, the felon PAID HIS DUES when he served his sentence. To keep punishing him after he served the punishment is BULLSH*T.
I’m going to repeat Johnny here, and say that if he was allowed to be out of prison, he should be able to own a firearm.
He’s either free or not, and if he’s free, should have the same rights as others. If he can’t be trusted, he should be locked up or shot.
The two issues are separate.
It is LUDICROUS that this guy is still being punished for that crime by being deprived of his right to have modern firearms.
Laws such as these are tyrannical and morally wrong. Once the felon pays his debt to society, whether it's jail time or a fine or whatever, the CHRISTIAN thing to do is to restore his rights and wish him well.
Second that, especially considering some of the animals that DO get released back among us.
Just curious. Should the guy who has PAID HIS DUES also have his vote restored?
On the same principle, YES. Absolutely. I may not like it, the guy may not vote the way I would, but that's beside the point. Once a convicted criminal has paid his debt to society in jail or with fines, his rights should be restored. It is the only MORAL way to handle it.
EQUALLY moral would be to RESCIND the right to vote from able-bodied Americans who depend on taxpayer-funded government charity such as EBT cards and welfare to support themselves. When they become self-sufficient and go off the government dole, they get their vote restored.
In principle, once the debt is payed, full citizenship is restored, including the rights to vote, defense of self and property,etc. At least that’s how it should be.
Keep in mind this refers to those who have payed their debt in full— not parolees.
Get a sword.
Felons know that before committing the crimes and it is a choice they make. If caught and convicted there should be negative consequences to their lives.
Many if not most felons do not commit just one felony but continue on the path of criminality.
This law does not stop the convicted felon from getting a gun. This guy did and he stopped the bad guy. Now he has face the consequences of the free choice that he made. If he is a good guy that made one mistake a long time ago then charges may be dropped or he may find a sympathetic judge or jury.
He also had the option of applying to the governor for restoration of rights. As I said before AFAIK felons are allowed to own black powder weapons so his right to defend himself with a firearm hasn't been taken away.
Holder will be giving that right back to felons too.
I agree with you that it is immoral but I think the two issues are intertwined. Using a law as a band-aid for another undesirable aspect of government, you make it that much harder to fix the original problem. Eagles6 sees a problem with lenient sentensing. By creating laws addressing the ill affects of letting criminals out early we are now enshrining the poor sentensing practices and making them harder to fix.
First I think we have to expect the police to enforce the laws as written. It is up to the grand jury or district attorney to decide if it is worth bringing an arrested person up on changes and to use due process in making that evaluation. Then it is up to a court and jury to decide if a conviction is warranted.
To take other courses is to avoid the rule of law or due process.
I believe in Kansas, a convicted felon who has served his sentence and is not on parole, has a process where he can apply for voting rights or the elimination of legal prohibitions that remain in place for firearm ownership to be lifted or to otherwise have his conviction expunged.
We can also have efforts with state legislatures to change the laws to allow full restoration of rights to felons automatically in some or all cases. The devil in in the details.
Do we want a two time armed robber to be able to purchase and carry firearms — if so, there is a legislative path to make that happen in a republic. This idea, expressed by some on the thread, that cops should ignore law breaking due to their on-the-spot evaluation of the circumstances is a very slippery path.
And yes, a 2 time armed robber either needs to remain in prison, be executed, or have his rights restored.
There are a LOT of formerly incarcertated people in the local slum areas I am GLAD have lost the right to own a firearm.
The constitution bans guns for felons, doesn’t it? (real question)
Would you agree with felons who have served their time getting the ability to vote back?
He served time for armed robbery. What did he use the gun for when he wasn't defending his home?
So if someone does time for murder or armed robbery then you have no problem giving them a gun once they get out? Kind of a helping them regain their old occupation?
So if someone goes to jail for child molestation and serves his time, you don't think there should be restrictions on where he can live or go, or an on-line registry telling all his neighbors about his past?
I’d have to, free is free is it not?
We have far bigger problems than some recently freed prisoners voting though.
Truth be told, voting doesn’t even matter anymore, everything has progressed past that.
G. Gordon Liddy was talking about some guns he had and one of the ‘wags’ was quick to point out he was a convicted felon and couldn’t own ANY weapons...
GGL “Mrs. Liddy has an extensive collection of firearms, some of which she keeps on my side of the bed.”
Unfortunately for some it is. But should it be? I can't find a statement anywhere in my copy of the Constitution that says felons who have paid their debt to society and are not incarcerated should be denied the right to firearms.
I have no problem with it. If a person is safe enough to be released back on the streets he should bel able to defend himself with a firearm.
The practical answer is that these laws have nothing to do with preventing crime directly. If a criminal wants a gun he can get a gun. The purpose of these laws is to give the DA the ability to bring more charges and request a longer sentence AFTER the felon has committed another crime.
It is automatic in Kansas that voting right are restored after parole is over. I think they have some 5 and 10 year rules on getting gun rights back based on the types of felonies where a gun wasn't involved.
The child molester is pretty much on lifetime probation which means that criminal act has different consequences than someone who committed a crime, did the time and finished parole.
Maybe the questions should be: If someone is convicted of child molestations should he/she ever be allowed out of prison? Likewise, I don't believe anyone convicted of 1st degree murder should ever get out. After legitimate and fairly quick appellate process a conviction of 1st degree murder should result in the death penalty.
If you want to punish someone for the rest of their life, keep them in prison or kill them.
As shown by this case. There was no way he should have been able to legally get a gun, so he got it illegally.