judging based on stuff the homeowner didn't know.... I live in a sketchy neighborhood myself. (I'm moving next week finally) my house is inside a fence that is locked. If someone is knocking at my door, they would have had to have hopped a fence. No burglary tools needed. But of course, if I shoot someone, the news article describing the shooting would never mention the fact that a murder happened 2 blocks from my house a year ago (drug deal gone bad) or that they jumped a fence to get to my door. So even if they just needed help, I still would be justified in being scared that someone is knocking on my door, especially if it's at night. the quick to judge pro-gun control crowd are simply trying to find another reason to gun grab. The situation should be investigated. If it's anything like the above situation, (which was pure conjecture on my part at this point), is possible. If that possibility is ruled out, throw the book at the homeowner under the law. If it's found that there was more to this story, be willing to change your stance as facts come out. But that won't happen. This is merely a "gun = bad" issue for many.
People use tools in a non proper fashion everyday . Not really that shocking . Why do I have visions of you sticking a screwdriver in an electrical socket??? That's just weird. I see that as late night humor not an insult. It surely wasn't meant as an insult. Wasn't even meant to disagree with his post. Just an injection of dry humor on my part. Ive disagreed with oldyoungin on an occasion or two but all in all he seems like a good egg.
What about an 85 year old man? By the way, a Kia might weigh as little as 2000#, a caddy weighs double to tripple that depending upon the model. - - - Updated - - - Of course it is a tool. What else would it be?
You have the right to defend against someone threatening you inside your house, not someone knocking on your door from outside your house. You can't seriously mean this. This is murder, pre-meditated, plain and simple. If he was scared he should have called 911 while hidding as far from the front door as possible. This one needs to serve a very long sentence, hopefully longer than the remainder of his life.
Well . . . as a minor extenuating circumstance the fellow and his attorney claim that he pulled the trigger by accident.
Then you also would deserve a murder conviction. OK to shoot someone inside your home, post break in, not OK to shoot someone knocking on your door. By the way, this "Gun Culture" has continued (and will) for hundreds of years.
Well, as a minor inconvience to you and the shooter; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine "Expanded self-defense laws Nearly all states allow some use of deadly force to protect yourself inside your home, based on the "Castle Doctrine." In some areas, many people still have a "duty to retreat" if possible against an attacker outside their home. But some states have expanded their laws to boost those protections in other areas." While it is true that Michigan (bastion of liberalism?) has expanded the rights of the defender to beyond the home, this is in direct contradiction to the tenets of the Castle Doctrine, upon which such laws are based, hence a miscarraige of justice, and should be overturned.
I did not state I would have shot this woman under these same circumstances, as I would have made clear my intentions before using force. The threat of this would likely have been enough, and a warning shot would also have been given if required...had firing my weapon at her become needed, a chest shot would be preferable regardless. I agree the gun culture is a part of the society we have created, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, but I would also point out that gun violence has become far more acceptable and common recently.
Yes I did, and I'm more than confident (unfortunately) that this woman and her family will get just as <MOD EDIT>>>BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER<<< over as the Martin family................. And before anybody chimes in or replies with trying to pull me back into another useless TM/GZ argument forget it......I'm not interested.
or denying that due process occurred, it just didn't match your preconceived verdict. I'd rather 99 guilty men walk free than to imprison 1 innocent man.
Yes, I will shoot anyone and then shoot them again if they wiggle if they are trying to break into my home. When does the liberal horde think that a person can defend themselves? After the crazed person at your door demanding to come in shoots you?? Murder you say without knowing the facts of the case. What you do know is that the Black woman was reported to be incoherent at the scene of the car crash. She may have suffered a brain injury in the car crash - not the shooter fault- or she may have crashed because she was stoned and drunk. We don't know how she acted at the shooter's door. We have more reason to think that the shooter was within his rights to defend himself than to believe that the incoherent woman had the right to push her way into the shooter's home late at night. I have to agree that Dearborn Heights seems to be living in fear of the Detroit intercity Blacks and that is a shame. How did the shooter CHOOSE this incoherent woman? It seems that she chose him and a bad choice it was. Do you have some examples of young Black people who were randomly shot by white people. There must be hundreds to one of young Black kids randomly shot by other Blacks but that the liberal horde accepts without a peep. I agree but there is no evidence that he shot this woman because she woke him up or caused him to have to get up from the TV. What we know is that the woman was incoherent and wondering around the neighborhood pounding on doors. We can't blame the shooter for going to the door with a gun - although he will regret it - and we can't blame the woman for seeking help. Being so negligent as to shoot a family member is way more negligent than exercising your right to self defense and having a woman try to push by you causing your weapon to discharge in her face. Tell us what his intent was - as you seem to think that you know. You have no idea that his intent was ever more than self defense - do you?
A very common defense made in all the "accidental shootings" we have regularly! Which is the best argument for a TOTAL gun ban! Some "accidental" incidents from the past week or two, by no means ALL incidents in that time frame. http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...shot-bangor/Kiz9WQd2nMeDSTva0JkJXJ/story.html http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/229419011.html And at least for once, it wasn't the CHILD who paid the price for the "accident"! http://freakoutnation.com/2013/11/0...the-back-by-his-child-in-walmart-parking-lot/
Myself I think that within the next fifty years the United States will gradually (step by step) indeed shift over to what will effectively be a nation wide firearms ban. But time will tell.
Did Zimmerman shoot and kill Trayvon? If the answer is yes then he is guilty of Murder One. He has no self defence claim, since he followed and then accosted the child. He put himself entirely in harm's way himself, and he then shot and killed a child. He has no claim to self defence whatsoever. He is guilty of Murder. In this case, as in many others throughout time, justice has not been served. To blindly cry "the verdict!" is to act a fool.
How will that time be any different than now or when the Bill of Rights was written? The second right, that to keep and bear arms must always remain intact or we become a totalitarian state. The 2nd amendment is more important to the people of the US now and in the future than ever.
Of course you're not because TM was shot legally and rightfully and you just can't deal with that truth. In this case, however it's completely different. The man in this case should be held accountable for manslaughter at worst, or murder at best. Accidental discharge is no excuse. You never point a loaded weapon at something unless you intended to shoot it, accidental or otherwise.
Wow, the whole TM trial and all the evidence has been posted in the news, in forums, hundreds, if not thousands of times and you STILL want to throw out BS because it matches what you think it should have been? What part of TM jumped GM did you miss? GM did not accost TM, not once. Geez...even the news and the truth don't matter anymore...the left are just going to insist it is something else and live in denial forever.
Nope, your right. Intent began with self defense we must assume. I'm 100% behind that right of self defense. I also believe once you brandish a weapon with the intent to do harm you had better act appropriately to the best of your abilitys under admittedly stressful conditions. This is my way of thinking, maybe not everyone's, maybe not the laws. Obviously anyone can state anyone with a gun must act appropriately and it's impossible to argue against that point. I see a difference between some idiot cleaning/dropping a loaded gun. As I said its stupid and criminally negligent but I still see the difference. Self defense with a firearm is our right. Two shotgun blasts off the porch Biden style is not acting appropriately in most neighborhoods wouldn't you agree? If you do then you admit there is a dividing line between appropriate conduct and recklessness. Of course every situation of home defense is different. Not hard to dream up a scenario where a ma deuce on the porch might be beneficial. JMO
