Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner

[Playboypenguin]

I just think its allot easier to just call the cops and let them know you are doing so. I would never get between a tweaker and anything.

I guess that is where we differ.

Just the other night I had to chase off a local street person who slipped into our building at 11:30pm and tried to walk out with a bunch of tools. Should I have just stepped out of his way and called the police as he walked off with thousands of dollars worth of tools?

[cloud8a]

WILDALASKA
"The bloodthirstyness I see among gun owners is scary."

THUMP THUMP WA is talking smack again. Has done nothing for this thread. War Bickering. Can't make his point.

TRASH TALKING AGAIN!

[KLRANGL]

Just the other night I had to chase off a local street person who slipped into our building at 11:30pm and tried to walk out with a bunch of tools. Should I have just stepped out of his way and called the police as he walked off with thousands of dollars worth of tools?

It probably would have been the smart play (especially if they werent your tools), as you are guaranteed that the situation wouldn't escalate.
But I cant fault you in the least, as I would have probably done the same thing. Life is full of risks.

[Playboypenguin]

THUMP THUMP WA is talking smack again. Has done nothing for this thread. War Bickering. Can't make his point.

No, he has made a point. The notion that people can go guns blazing over property is a pretty sad one. It sickens me a little to hear it come out of the mouths of supposedly responsible gun owners. I never fail to be amazed at the number of bloodthirsty attitudes among civilized people. IMHO the "if you mess with me I will blow you away" attitude is just cause to remove a persons guns from them in itself.

Where my opinion differs is that I do not believe I am precluded from lower levels of defense of my personal property simply because the possibility of escalation is present. Escalation will be up the the aggressor. I would not place my self in a situation of being the aggressor. I would simply respond to the immediate threat with appropriate measures.

If I was in a public place where the only stake I had in the encounter was my person and my pride I would simply take both of those and retreat if possible...but on my own property, were I cannot remove the threat of loss from the equation simply by leaving the scene, things are different. I will not accept that I am required to lay down and take some loss simply because of risk of greater loss if I do not acquiesce to the will and actions of an outside aggressor.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I hate to break this to you, but insurance isn't free and rates go up and coverage is lost when you actually file a claim.

I know, and I would have tried to stop the kid but I wouldn't have shot him absent an obvious deadly threat. My insurance is of the renters variety and, as such, is miniscule in cost. Regardless, I would not kill over property. In NY state it would be entirely legal to use lesser degrees of force to stop and/or apprehend the thug, and I would do so. There aren't many 17 year old kids that I'd be very worried about in a fist fight, for example. If I was worried, I have more than one neighbor that would be happy to help me even the odds.

[Donn_N]

That money comes out of my pocket. Why should I just allow someone to take money out of my pocket without any resistance?

Shall I list the pros versus cons again? They may not all apply to you given the different neighborhood, but most of them will.

The relatively small increase that might accompany a claim is worth your life or the life of someone else? So now we can kill someone because not doing so might increase our insurance costs? I guess I should put that into the the pros column: shooting someone will keep insurance costs down.

[Playboypenguin]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

I know, and I would have tried to stop the kid but I wouldn't have shot him absent an obvious deadly threat.

Neither would I...but I would have stood between him and my property until police arrived. Whether it went further than that would be up to him.

Shall I list the pros versus cons again? They may not all apply to you given the different neighborhood, but most of them will.

Simple pros and cons are not applicable in such situations. You have to also weigh percentages. If someone is going to beat me up I can say if I just take the beating I will probably not die, but if I fight back I might cause him to pull a gun and shoot me...or I can look at it the proper way and say the odds of him pulling a gun are small, but the odds of me receiving a beating are 100% if I do not protect myself.

As long as a person understands their rights, acts accordingly to the threat presented, and does not needlessly escalate a situation beyond the threat actually presented there is nothing wrong with defending yourself.

[Zilmo]

The willingness of so many people to enter into an armed conflict over trivial matters scares the **** out of me. Answering the door with a gun in your hand? Maybe at 3:00 in the morning, but geez. Looking to shoot someone who twitches? Give me a break.

I simply can't imagine living in the perceived fear that some people here demonstrate. My god, how can life be any fun at all if you are always jumping at shadows? Is there a bad guy under every bush? Does the pizza delivery man scare you into getting your guns out?

[Texas Rifleman]

I from Texas and my family has been in the state for four generations. You have to understand the cultural difference. In many other states people feel they're obligated to just raise their hands and give up. In some states it is required. In Texas, you have the right to stop someone who is trying to kill you, stealing your property, or even stealing your neighbors property with deadly force. The culture here is merciless towards criminals. Love it, or hate it. Many criminals expect you to give up. The justice system is so broken. Even if (quoting someone elses example) a man stole some tools and you let him go and he was later arrested for it he most likely would not even go to jail for it. These people have been arrested, in some cases, 100s of times. In the case we're talking about the man should have left the kid alone and called the police. It's hard to say unless you were in his shoes. We all need to use our heads when making life and death decisions even though it is sometimes hard. If he honestly felt like his life was in danger then he did the right thing. Tough call.

[cloud8a]

Personal noise

[OuTcAsT]

Shall I list the pros versus cons again?

Sadly, it will do no good. There are many here who simply cannot fathom that there is a difference between shooting to defend yourself, and shooting to prevent someone from taking your possessions. Equally sad is that these same folks place more regard on their car, tools, stereo, etc. than any human life.

In their world material objects can somehow be translated to a "portion of their lives" And justifies using deadly force to protect. (or the ever popular "I will not shoot someone over possessions, but I will stand in his way, and if he threatens me I will shoot to "defend myself") batch of excrement that is simply saying "I will shoot someone over my stuff"

Self-defense somehow becomes simply "defense of whatever I choose".

And anyone who can truly see the difference is somehow a coward, a sheep, or some such, the usual argument that is commonly bandied about is along the lines of "I work hard for blah blah blah, as if the rest of us somehow do not.
And explaining the use of such things as insurance only brings a reply of, "yeah, well I shouldn't have to , that's why I have a gun"

Their circular logic is as frustrating as it is exasperating.

[Playboypenguin]

In their world material objects can somehow be translated to a "portion of their lives" And justifies using deadly force to protect.

Only a few people are suggesting that. Some people, like myself, are suggesting that someone is not limited to deadly force as a response simply because they are capable of it. Being capable of deadly force also does not mean that someone has to lay down and take no action of a lesser degree when confronted with situations that do not require it.

A person should not be forced to be a victim simply because they risk greater danger by taking action. If that was the case, criminals could act with near impunity as long as they never threatened physical violence.

[Donn_N]

Simple pros and cons are not applicable in such situations. You have to also weigh percentages.

Okay. So what percentage chance of you having to shoot someone or getting shot during a confrontation is acceptable to prevent your insurance rates from going up? 1% 10%, 50%?

Personally, even if there is a 1% chance that the confrontation is going to end up with me or the other guy dead or seriously injured, I'm not going to take that chance just to save a couple of bucks a month on my homeowners insurance.

As long as a person understands their rights, acts accordingly to the threat presented, and does not needlessly escalate a situation beyond the threat actually presented there is nothing wrong with defending yourself.

You're right. And the best way of defending yourself is to avoid situations where death or serious injury are possible - such as an armed confrontation with someone stealing the radio out of your car. No amount of property or insurance premium increases are worth my life or the life of someone else.

Ask yourself this question, as well. Would I be as willing to confront the thief if I wasn't armed?

[Donn_N]

Only a few people are suggesting that.

And you are among them. Willingly going into an armed conflict to stop a theft is showing a willingness to shoot someone over property. If you don't think that such an outcome is possible, leave the gun in the house. If you do think such an outcome is possible, don't go in the first place.

[Playboypenguin]

Okay. So what percentage chance of you having to shoot someone or getting shot during a confrontation is acceptable to prevent your insurance rates from going up? 1% 10%, 50%?

Personally, even if there is a 1% chance that the confrontation is going to end up with me or the other guy dead or seriously injured, I'm not going to take that chance just to save a couple of bucks a month on my homeowners insurance.

That is your choice and you are welcome to make it. Unfortunately men like yourself might live to fight another day (or actually to not fight another day) but no real progress is really made by such actions. Rationalizing why it is better to be a victim is not a very progressive mindset. Many people would say that the level or moral decay that exists today does so because of similar attitudes.

Also, you cannot base your argument on the idea that one must go out guns blazing to defend themselves. There are different levels of conflict and response and to ignore that simple based on a "worst case" scenario completely negates your argument.

[OuTcAsT]

Only a few people are suggesting that

And those are the people that the statement reflects, unless you count yourself among them then why the angst?

Some people, like myself, are suggesting that someone is not limited to deadly force as a response simply because they are capable of it. Being capable of deadly force also does not mean that someone has to lay down and take no action of a lesser degree when confronted with situations that do not require it.

Agreed, I do not see how that relates to the story of this particular event, (unless it doesn't) but you are correct IMO

A person should not be forced to be a victim simply because they risk greater danger by taking action.

Of course not, but the same person should not needlessly escalate a situation simply because he has a gun as a backup plan, when other options are available.

[Wildalaska]

Does the pizza delivery man scare you into getting your guns out?

You ever see an Alaskan Pizza delivery guy with no teeth, white guy unwashed dreads, zits and an sauce splattered T Shirt logoed with an Arrow pointing down and the words "Dinner is Served"? Dude, thats why the M4 is by the door

Would I be as willing to confront the thief if I wasn't armed?

Thats to me is the essense of the responsible gun owner...the maturity and experience to ask himself/herself that question when confronted with a situation..."how would I handle this while unarmed"...and act in accord with the answer

WildofcouirsethatsthecowardlyviewAlaska ™

[Texas Rifleman]

As long as a person understands their rights, acts accordingly to the threat presented, and does not needlessly escalate a situation beyond the threat actually presented there is nothing wrong with defending yourself.

I agree.

As far as thiefs go, listen to me. It's my stuff. Mine. I worked for it, they didn't. They're stealing. Stealing is wrong. If their life was precious they should have guarded it better and treated it with the respect needed and done something better with it. That's not my problem. If someone is stealing my stuff I'm going to stop them...period. I'm not totally a bastard, though. If it's a kid I wouldn't. They're still young and trying to figure things out. On the other side if the kid is trying to shoot me I would stop them in a heartbeat. Protecting youself is number one. Protecting your property is something that is up to the individual to decide. It's not about the property being apart of you, that's selfish. It's about stopping a criminal who is committing a crime right there and right then and keeping them from doing it to someone else. You may even stop that person from doing something even worse like stealing your daughters innocence by raping her. The lesson is don't committ crimes. You're not protected here.

[Texas Rifleman]

Sorry for the rant! I should have stayed on subject. I still don't know enough about the story to be the judge and jury on this guy. It's not my place.

[cloud8a]

"Would I be as willing to confront the thief if I wasn't armed?"

WA
"Thats to me is the essense of the responsible gun owner...the maturity and experience to ask himself/herself that question when confronted with a situation..."how would I handle this while unarmed"...and act in accord with the answer"

Excuse me but if you expect anyone to believe that you would confront a burglar the same without a gun as you would with one, you sir are not being honest. And no one in a SD situation is going to stop and ask themselves "How would I handle this situation unarmed".

WA I want you to characterize the teen.

[Wildalaska]

It's about stopping a criminal who is committing a crime right there and right then and keeping them from doing it to someone else.

So private deterrance is the answer? Death as the ultimate deterrance? How about making it state sanctioned then...execute all felons...is that the type of society we want?

WildthatneedsathreadtooAlaska ™

[OuTcAsT]

Thats to me is the essense of the responsible gun owner...the maturity and experience to ask himself/herself that question when confronted with a situation..."how would I handle this while unarmed"...and act in accord with the answer

And there it is, the most sensible logic yet espoused, an un-ambiguous truth. Thank You !

[spacemanspiff]

I never fail to be amazed at the number of bloodthirsty attitudes among civilized people. IMHO the "if you mess with me I will blow you away" attitude is just cause to remove a persons guns from them in itself.

Sometimes I wonder if those who are most vocal about things like that, are all bark no bite.

[Texas Rifleman]

In regards to WildAlaska -

No. But our own system has failed us. In Texas these are our rights. Maybe not elsewhere, but here they are. every situation is up to the individual. I'll be honest, if someone is stealing something I will confront them (with a concealed weapon they cannot see) in hopes they will stop and run because most of them will. But if they don't...well. In Houston we have a WAY worse crime problem than in Alaska. On Mason Rd. a white kid was shot several times at a red light as part of a gang initiation. This happens a lot and this happened not to long ago near my house. Ruthless. Good area too. These criminals have NO regard for human life. If I have to choose between them and me it will always be me. I also don't consider myself a paranoid person. If I had these views and was super paranoid I would scare myself!

[cloud8a]

Characterize the teen WA. So the old man was bloodthirsty? Characterize the Teen.