Homeowner steps up: shoots suspected burglar in the back

I own 7 guns and would never shoot anyone for just being on my property outside my home. But if they come in my home, they're dead.

 

Yes we can. Don't like it? Too (*)(*)(*)(*)ed bad. If somebody is stealing from me(taking part of my life) I have the right to take part of theirs to stop them.
That garbage about walking across my yard is just bull(*)(*)(*)(*). "carrying away my property"? It's called stealing! Stop trying to change what's happening with your (*)(*)(*)(*)ed ******* doublethink.

 

Actually I do not live in fear. But I am cautious given the reality that we all live in today.. One should never live in fear. But caution is a suggested mindset whether at home or not. Reality is what it is!!! I can only control what I do, but have no control over what others wish to do to me except to defend myself. If I show weakness or cowardice, that is as good as an invitation to come on back like happened to the homeowner 5 or 6 times according to the OP..

 

Thats it take away states rights. Typical leftist logic that makes no sense

 

Typical Liberal mindset! Jeez!! I think the Federal Goobermint should mandate what is said in the constitution, and allow all citizens to be able to protect themselves from potentially dangerous and oppressive force, including that from the goobermint itself! Your kind of thinking that the Fed should take care of us and baby-sit us is exactly what is wrong with this country already. They are unwilling to do so, and waiting for help to arrive is a death sentence..

 

Excellent attitude!

I can't believe so many putative gun owners cannot seem to understand that people don't disagree with defending your home, they disagree with firing guns out into the street.


I hope they can forgive me for supporting at LEAST 2nd degree murder when they kill or wound an innocent bystander by firing out into the yard.

 

Yeah, especially at night when no doubt careful aiming wasn't possibly, but hey, just firing randomly into the street in the general direction of the person is good enough in some people's minds.

 

Who here has said any one fired a gun out into the street? Your assumption is preposterous and self serving bull (*)(*)(*)(*)!. And who are you to say that those here who claim to own guns are putative?? Your emotions seem to override the reality that surrounds you. Typical liberal crap. You can line up all the IF's you want to, but regardless of how many, they will never add up to fact and truth!! But you liberals do not base your thoughts on fact and truth, so I guess it doesn't matter much to you...

 

why are people arguing about this? what the home owner did was legal and within his rights and will not have charges pressed against him. simple, its over.

if you idiot liberals would put this much effort into stopping gang members and those who actually do true damage to innocent people you might get something done. but no, attack the law abiding citizens protecting their property and life because you are honestly too chicken(*)(*)(*)(*) to take on the real bad guys in our society.

bunch of cowards.

 

Once again, who fired randomly into the street?? And who fired in a general direction and had a 33% hit rate, when most cops have a 34% hit rate when taking aim based on hundreds of live fire shots in stressful situations? Biased *reporting* can be your worst enemy when you take it so far to heart..






*_ * = sarcasm

 

yeah aiming isnt possible at night because neighborhoods dont ever have lights outside lol.

are you kidding me? if i had to shoot someone outside my home i could see just fine from the street lights in the neighborhood, they provide plenty of good lighting.

 

He wasn't firing blindly. He identified the burglar and shot in his direction...and apparently he's a good shot as he hit him in the back.

Ummmm...actually you can. You have the right to protect your life and property.

A thief in essence is violating my 4th Amendment right and also causes emotional/psychological harm. The feeling of safety goes out the window along with the possessions.

For the federal government to do such a thing would be a huge violation of State's rights and usurping the power of the people who voted for this law. Then again though, you are no proponent of power of the people, you are more of power of the government because you think the government knows better than the people.

 

go to the link in the OP, the article gives the name of the town and the street, then go to Google maps and take a cruise down that street till you see a house and chin link fence like the one in the article. Nearest streetlight is 4 houses down.

you guys would make lousy detectives, took me all of 3 minutes to figure out there was no streetlight anywhere near LOL

 

I do not claim tot be a authority on UK laws but I am aware of the restrictions on ownership. I have not been in the UK in almost 30 years and have no plans on doing so anytime soon. My gun club recently hosted a international event and I met quite a few of the shooters from the UK. The second day of the event I brought a few of my pistols up and let some of the brit shooters have some fun with them between the relays. They had a ball because most had never held a pistol before, even though they were world class marksmen with rifles.

first of all the statics were not vague they were from the UK government report on crime. Secondly if you look at statistics from the US the most gun crimes occur in the US in areas where the gun ownership laws are the strictest.

NEWSFLASH
​

​

CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE FRAP ABOUT LAWS, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS​

It is a proven fact that criminals would rather burglarize a easy victim than an armed one. But please continue with the "I love being a victim " mentality so beloved by the liberals. If you enjoy being raped robbed and beaten by CRIMINALS WHO DON'T GIVE A DARN ABOUT THE LAW , that is not my problem

 

well apparently it was lit up enough to where he aimed at the criminal and hit him 1 out of 3 shots.

if it was too dark i doubt he would have hit anything at all.

google maps may be a good tool, but one still needs common sense. just sayin lol.

 

Chicago is a perfect example.

 

did you bother to look at Google maps and look at the street? Where did the other 2 bullets go? I don't want that guy as my neighbor, I am still trying to convince my neighbor to use a shotgun as his home defense gun rather than the 357 he now has. The guy has not shot it in 20 years and figure there is a even chance he would shoot one of us neighbors rather than any suspected burglar.

I am not against self defense, what I am against is reckless actions and that is written all over this incident.

 

How about locking their doors and windows, installing security lights and a burglar alarm?
If they're dumb enough to leave their home unsecured they can expect robbers to accept the invitation. Once is excusable, 6 times and you have to start asking questions.

 

do you also feel that after a woman is raped she should adopt wearing burkahs ?

 

Who said their doors and windows were not locked and they didn't have a security alarm? Maybe it was an alarm that woke the guy up, but that type of biased report will never tell you the full facts.. And after 6 times, the questions should be towards those who are sworn to protect and serve, not to the homeowner who defends his property and family... ....

 

Decent deterrents work. Burglars hate lights, noise. I would think that the fact that they managed to get into the house 6 times speaks for itself. As for the police, what do you want them to do, camp in the front yard and wait for a crook to show up?

 

My favorite part is where you rail against someone else speculating, and go on to speculate yourself.

This 6 times thing isn't a reason to begin shooting, first off how do you know it was same criminal, and second why didn't he shoot the 1st through 6th?

IMO I am not against self defense, heck I took various martial arts over 15 years. If someone is in your home you have every right to do whatever you need to stop the intruder. If someone is trying to use a deadly weapon on you, those you love, or even someone you've never met outside of your home do what you need to. If someone is trying to break into your car, and you're not in it you can't use deadly force on them.

 

That is just stupid.

An 80 pound woman who is being threatened by a large unarmed man should be forced to fight him of without using the gun in her purse?

Or a man who has a gun in a holster has to wait for the criminal to draw his before he responds? The criminal will have plenty of time to aim and fire before the victim gets a chance to draw a weapon in that circumstance.

What you propose is simply to make things as easy and safe for criminal garbage as possible.

 

Had the thief died and no charges were pressed against the shooter it would be pretty easy to see where the thief's constitutional rights to a trial were violated. Use of deadly force implies death on some occasions, and death for petty larceny isn't justice, it's draconian, cruel, overreactive, overkill, and old west anarchy (Deadwood -though in Deadwood you could not carry a gun).

The Federal Government has stepped in when states have fallen short in protecting a persons rights the aftermath of Brown v Board of Education springs immediately to mind.