Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner - Page 6

markj · June 19, 2009, 02:46 PM

Another "Kill em all" type of thread.

The weapon is for personal protection when all else fails and it is the last resort. Never is it to be the first thing we go to.

The weapon is a powerful tool, it can change everything in the blink of an eye. I would have done it differently, of this I am sure.

OuTcAsT · June 19, 2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Rationalizing why it is better to be a victim is not a very progressive mindset.

Yet trying to rationalize shooting someone over property is..."Progressive"?

PBP, C'mon, you are an educated man, with a keen intellect, can you honestly not see this type of logic orbiting the bowl ?

Donn_N · June 19, 2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

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.

I will live to fight another day when there is something worth fighting for - like my life or my family, not a car radio.

If your morals allows you kill someone for stealing your car radio then okay. Mine do not. No car radio is worth a human life - mine or the thief's.

I think blaming moral decay on people not being willing to kill someone because their car radio is being stolen is stretching things a bit.

And thank God I don't have a progressive mindset. "Progressive" is what liberals are calling themselves these days.

Zilmo · June 19, 2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Another "Kill em all" type of thread.

Hey, those pizza guys can be pretty creepy.

Texas Rifleman · June 19, 2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

The weapon is for personal protection when all else fails and it is the last resort. Never is it to be the first thing we go to.

The weapon is a powerful tool, it can change everything in the blink of an eye. I would have done it differently, of this I am sure.

I agree and to a degree I understand your last statement. We often question our actions. You have to weigh in less than a second, "Am I going to die? They're trying to kill me. can this be avoided? Should I do something!? I'm scared! Can't think straight. Is that a gun? They're shooting at me! Etc." and it's not even fair because you have to think about all these things in less time than it takes to read them! And in the end the decision you make will affect you the rest of your life, if you live. Firearm useage must be responsible and necessary.

Re4mer · June 19, 2009, 02:58 PM

I think we should all give the gun owner the benefit of the doubt on this one. We all know how the media likes to spin things and frankly had this poor man not had his gun the kid probably would have beat him senseless. Also I don't think he was necessarily wrong to confront the kid it was his property and the guy was arguing about getting a crack pipe back for crying out loud!

Texas Rifleman · June 19, 2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

I think we should all give the gun owner the benefit of the doubt on this one. We all know how the media likes to spin things and frankly had this poor man not had his gun the kid probably would have beat him senseless. Also I don't he was necessarily wrong to confront the kid it was his property and the guy was arguing about getting a crack pipe back for crying out loud!

Finally someone who makes sense and sees the reality of the situation! Congratulations on not being brainwashed sir.

Re4mer · June 19, 2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Finally someone who makes sense and sees the reality of the situation! Congratulations on not being brainwashed sir.

Thanks for the support. I live near Detroit and every now and then we had to deal with one of these nutty drug people at a gas station or something. Trust me they are plenty threatening especially to an older person.

doh_312 · June 19, 2009, 03:13 PM

I'm in agreement with the shooter here. Totally justified in my view. If your on someone elses property and they have a rifle trained on you, I suggest you leave. If you do not, and especially if you advance on the rifle weilding property owner, then you are choosing to get shot at.

nstoolman1 · June 19, 2009, 03:19 PM

I read the article. Going strictly on the presented information I don't feel it was a shooting over property but one of a perceived danger to the homeowner. I feel it should not matter whether you are outside your house or on the property. Why should a person who is fortunate enough to CCW have more rights to defend themselves while off of their property and the homeowner in order to have a "justified reason" to shoot has to run inside the house. Dying outside is just as bad as dying inside. I don't think a bad guy is going to wait for you to get in the house before they start shooting. Someone is going to get one in the back. I firmly believe that the more the bad guys know that there is an armed society not afraid to defend themselves the fewer would try. Years ago when the Night Stalker hit Southern Calif. gun sales skyrocketed and house crimes dropped like a rock. Would you break in to a home you suspected that a gun was waiting on the other side? This is just my opinion. Thanks for reading.

Dwight55 · June 19, 2009, 03:44 PM

Yes, . . . it was a waste of a young life, . . .

But when a dang fool crackhead kid is stupid enough to take on an old geezer with a rifle, . . . reminds me of the one about taking a knife to a gunfight.

Being darned near a geezer myself, . . . yeah, . . . I can easily see where it was a justified shoot.

May God bless,
Dwight

TailGator · June 19, 2009, 03:46 PM

There have been a series of posts portraying the gun owner as having left his house with a gun to protect his stuff. I'm not entirely sure that is accurate, even though an earlier post of mine asked us all to consider whether there may have been some justification in the man trying to keep his tools and equipment - his means of making a living - from being stolen in a neighborhood where theft of similar items had already been known to occur.

Rather, it seems to me that he left his house hoping that his presence and witness would deter the theft, and took his rifle with him in case the situation escalated to a deadly threat.

Is this not why some of us get concealed weapons permits and carry on a daily basis? Not to seek out trouble, but to be prepared for escalation of the mundane everyday threads into a deadly situation? Do we condemn the man for being prepared for the escalation that actually occurred in the substance of the teen advancing on him? That seems to me to be pragmatism, of the same source that most or all of us hereon practice, rather than blood lust.

Playboypenguin · June 19, 2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Yet trying to rationalize shooting someone over property is..."Progressive"?

PBP, C'mon, you are an educated man, with a keen intellect, can you honestly not see this type of logic orbiting the bowl ?

I would never shoot someone over property...but I would shoot someone if they threatened me with potentially deadly violence while I was preventing them access to my property. I have no problem with people condemning those that would do so...just with people pretending it is an all or nothing situation with no other alternatives than to just take it.

Quote:

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.

But when is it needless? Is it needless for a person who cannot afford to replace their car they rely on for work to confront someone that is going to steal or damage it? Should they just let someone take or destroy it, causing great financial and other harm to themselves, just because they "might" have to escalate the situation if the thief then decides to go from common thief to assailant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donn_N

I will live to fight another day when there is something worth fighting for - like my life or my family, not a car radio.

Why are you assuming anyone's life was taken over a car radio? That is not the situation as presented at all. A life was taken because a perp decided to present a physical threat to another person. I do not agree with presenting a weapon as a deterrent to theft, but if while using appropriate force to deter theft the criminal decides to escalate the threat they pose you can respond accordingly and you should not have to lie down and accept the lower level of loss just because it "might" get worse if you do not. Like I said before, to base your decision on a "worst case" scenario is a weak argument. Anything can be rationalized with such a mindset.

To condemn some people for the "shoot'em all attitude" is appropriate, but to try and pretend the non-involvement route is somehow the only civilized course of action is ridiculous. Appropriate force can be used to meet non-lethal situations. If the unlikely occurs and the situation then becomes potentially lethal to the person protecting their interests it is a very backwards way of thinking to "blame the victim" for not running away. That is like blaming a rape victim because they wore a short skirt.

TEDDY · June 19, 2009, 04:32 PM

I have had three confrontations involving my gun,and screw you "oh a life is precious,let him take your property.you have no idea what a invader is going to do,and to wait to long may be your last wait.read the rifle man and the cases where showing a gun does not stop the invasion.texas is not the only state.unknown to most Mass has a castle bill "you have a right to eject unwanted persons from your home with all force necesary including lethal force" an example was made and settled in shooters favor.
here in SC it is assumed that persons on your property are up to no good and you can assume they mean to harm you.couple cases have been an example.and you can defend your self in any place you are legally entitled to be.
as to where the perp was shot does not mean any thing,police often shoot a person all over.Winsockett RI cops shot 50 time and hit perp 3 times.
try being confronted by a perp some time and your attitude will change
there is a reason "a conservative is a liberal thats been mugged"

Brian Pfleuger · June 19, 2009, 05:00 PM

I agree with the idea that one should ask themselves "What would I do if I didn't have a gun?"

I also suggest that a person has no duty to NOT do what they would do if they didn't have a gun just because they DO have a gun.

Confronting someone who is trespassing on your property is a basic right. If the situation is escalated BY THEM to one that requires force, fine. It's their choice.

The homeowner did not start with force. He would have been better off with a concealed weapon IMO, that could be revealed as needed, possibly even in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, which is specifically allowed by law in many places.

Once the firearm is present and the BG presses forward, well, justification of the use of force, including deadly force, would be highly dependent on the typical rules. ie, disparity of force, fear for life, etc.

OuTcAsT · June 19, 2009, 05:09 PM

Quote:

I would never shoot someone over property...I would never shoot someone over property...

OK, Got it.

Quote:

but I would shoot someone if they threatened me with potentially deadly violence while I was preventing them access to my property.

OK, that brings us to this:

Quote:

But when is it needless?

Lets see if we can complete the circle, and answer your question at the same time.

Your car is parked in your driveway, or your lawnmower is sitting in your front lawn, or, you have left your gold brick lying about on the picnic table in the back yard, makes no difference which, they are all property
(now stay with me here)

Someone comes into your yard, and attempts to take your property, You see this about to happen, yell out the door for him to stop and leave, at this point you have some pivotal decisions to make;

A. Call 911, give a description of the thief, your property, and the situation, and keep feeding information as available until he leaves (with or without your property)
or until the police arrive.

B. Cover your concealed weapon, go outside, confront the thief, and tell him you are not just going to stand Idly by while he steals your property.

The decision you make from either A. or B. is going to have consequences.

Choice A. Your property may or may not get taken, if not all is well, if it does, you are able to give police a description of the thief and the property stolen, call your insurance agent, and either get back your property, or a replacement, and you are still safe.

Choice B. Your property may or may not get taken, but that is going to depend on several variables, thief may get scared and leave, good!
thief may want to get physical, and will either be settled by a scuffle, you are beaten or killed, or you will feel threatened enough to shoot him.

Choice A. You are still alive, you still have property, you have not taken a life.

Choice B. You may be still alive, you may still have property, or, you have injured or taken a life.

If you have chosen B. and have had to kill someone, guess what? You just broke your own word; How? You killed someone over property.

You may choose to say, "no I killed him because he threatened me while I was protecting my property"

There is NO difference. You had a choice, A. or B. when you chose B. you put yourself in the position of being threatened. Needlessly.

And in the position to kill someone over property, and justify it with self defense.

Quote:

I would never shoot someone over property...but I would shoot someone if they threatened me with potentially deadly violence while I was preventing them access to my property.

^^ See the "circle" ? ^^

Understand the term "needless" ?

Quote:

Should they just let someone take or destroy it, causing great financial and other harm to themselves,

That is what property insurance is for. If you own a gun, it is Life insurance, not property insurance.

Zilmo · June 19, 2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

I also suggest that a person has no duty to NOT do what they would do if they didn't have a gun just because they DO have a gun.

I'm sorry, but I don't have enough bread crumbs to find my way back from that.

Brian Pfleuger · June 19, 2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry, but I don't have enough bread crumbs to find my way back from that.

Simple. If you would confront the person if you didn't have the gun then you have every right to confront that person when you do have a gun. You have the right to boot someone off your property. You have the right to have a gun present to defend yourself if the person becomes violent. That use of force depends on the same rules as if you were out on the street, such as disparity of force, reasonable belief, etc.

KLRANGL · June 19, 2009, 05:35 PM

Outcast, sorry I don't buy your argument. Not fully anyway. You can confront someone without having forced them into attacking you. If they do attack you, it isn't because you made them. Sure going outside increases the risk of them attacking you, but it doesn't cause it. Girls that wear short skirts in public don't cause guys to rape them...

The risk should be accounted for when you are making the decision on what to do. Me personally, I'd probably just stay inside because to me its not worth the risk. But I wouldn't fault someone for going out.

OuTcAsT · June 19, 2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

You can confront someone without having forced them into attacking you.

Yes, you can, I will concede part of that.
But how is a confrontation going to go? The guy will either leave, or the situation is going to escalate. this is, at best, a 50/50 bet, and you can either play those odds, or choose to not bet.

And I never said "Don't confront" My point is, if you are gonna confront someone over a property issue, and the situation escalates, you may end up on the legal high ground by claiming "self defense" was the reason for the shooting, but the honest truth is, it was over property, if it were not, you would have no reason to confront.

KLRANGL · June 19, 2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

But how is a confrontation going to go? The guy will either leave, or the situation is going to escalate. this is, at best, a 50/50 bet, and you can either play those odds, or choose to not bet.

I wouldn't quite put it at 50/50, depending on the situation. But yeah, I agree you either play the odds or you dont. I just cant agree that if it does escalate, it means you just defended property with lethal force. I advise against confrontation from a tactical standpoint, not from a legal or moral standpoint.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I care about my own life, and don't care the least for the guy stealing from me... I never bought into the whole "every life is sacred" theory. (Dangit, now I got the Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" song stuck in my head

)
But if someone is stealing something, you go out and tell them to leave, they attack you and you kill them... well to me it doesn't make sense that it is your fault in the least. I dunno. I guess I don't really have to worry, cuz I don't plan on confronting someone anytime soon. Maybe its the bit of french blood in me

Playboypenguin · June 19, 2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Your car is parked in your driveway, or your lawnmower is sitting in your front lawn, or, you have left your gold brick lying about on the picnic table in the back yard, makes no difference which, they are all property

You scenario falls apart from the very first sentence. There is a great deal of difference between types of property. If you rely on a car or a lawn mower for your living and they are destroyed or stolen you have not just lost a material item. You have also lost a means of supporting yourself and your family...and insurance only covers so much and often nothing at all. You also go on to present odds that make no sense. If someone is in the act of destroying or stealing my property the odds are 100% that I am going to suffer an immediate loss. Then there is also the odds of said thief returning to the easy prey later. In such a situation you have to consider the odds of successfully defending your property against the odds of things going wrong. You also have to understand that as long as you do not escalate the issue you are not in the wrong if the criminal chooses to do some themselves.

People are severely misusing the term "escalate" in regards to someone meeting a threat with appropriate force. If you are simply responding justifiably to a threat and not using more force than necessary you are not escalating the event. If the person on the other end alters their tactics to override your appropriately gauged defensive measures they are the ones escalating the event.

Quote:

But how is a confrontation going to go? The guy will either leave, or the situation is going to escalate. this is, at best, a 50/50 bet, and you can either play those odds, or choose to not bet.

I can go downtown and feel relatively certain I will not be attacked, but I cannot know that for sure since it does happen every day. If I follow your line of thinking I am invoking an attack by going downtown since I cannot be certain it will not go horribly wrong and should therefore just stay home. I definitely should never go downtown with a concealed weapon because there is a thousand different ways that could go wrong.

I know we all want to be PC and present a good face for the pro-gun movement but that does not entail becoming sheep...or worse yet perpetual victims. There is no need to try and classify someone as barbaric because they will defend their home (keep in mind "defending their home" can range anywhere from a verbal warning to a helping hand off the property). There is no reason to try and assign blame to them if doing so causes another free willed person to decide to harm them for daring to defend themselves.

Hank15 · June 19, 2009, 07:17 PM

Guys, don't look at everything from a legal perspective.

If this was your old stubborn grandfather, I am sure you'd support him rather than give him all the legal BS.

Wildalaska · June 19, 2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Guys, don't look at everything from a legal perspective.

If this was your old stubborn grandfather, I am sure you'd support him rather than give him all the legal BS.

And if the decedent was your son?

How come no one responded to my mailbox soundbite, infra, somewhere?

WildsomebodyisomebodyelsesfamilyAlaska TM

Hank15 · June 19, 2009, 08:24 PM

What's the mailbox soundbite infra thing about? I don't think I read it.

And to answer your question, if I have a son in the future, I don't see him pulling off any stunts like that, not if I raise him right.

WildAlaska, I told people to think of the old man as their grandfather with your response in mind.

I don't see myself correcting my 82 year old grandfather, but I do see myself raising my son correctly so that he doesn't do the stuff mentioned in the article.

That's why I only told people to imagine that the old man was their grandfather, but mentioned nothing about the decedent.

June 19, 2009, 03:44 PM	#136
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	Yes, . . . it was a waste of a young life, . . . But when a dang fool crackhead kid is stupid enough to take on an old geezer with a rifle, . . . reminds me of the one about taking a knife to a gunfight. Being darned near a geezer myself, . . . yeah, . . . I can easily see where it was a justified shoot. May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

June 19, 2009, 04:32 PM	#139
TEDDY Junior member Join Date: December 10, 2006 Location: MANNING SC Posts: 837	shooting I have had three confrontations involving my gun,and screw you "oh a life is precious,let him take your property.you have no idea what a invader is going to do,and to wait to long may be your last wait.read the rifle man and the cases where showing a gun does not stop the invasion.texas is not the only state.unknown to most Mass has a castle bill "you have a right to eject unwanted persons from your home with all force necesary including lethal force" an example was made and settled in shooters favor. here in SC it is assumed that persons on your property are up to no good and you can assume they mean to harm you.couple cases have been an example.and you can defend your self in any place you are legally entitled to be. as to where the perp was shot does not mean any thing,police often shoot a person all over.Winsockett RI cops shot 50 time and hit perp 3 times. try being confronted by a perp some time and your attitude will change there is a reason "a conservative is a liberal thats been mugged"

June 19, 2009, 05:00 PM	#140
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	I agree with the idea that one should ask themselves "What would I do if I didn't have a gun?" I also suggest that a person has no duty to NOT do what they would do if they didn't have a gun just because they DO have a gun. Confronting someone who is trespassing on your property is a basic right. If the situation is escalated BY THEM to one that requires force, fine. It's their choice. The homeowner did not start with force. He would have been better off with a concealed weapon IMO, that could be revealed as needed, possibly even in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, which is specifically allowed by law in many places. Once the firearm is present and the BG presses forward, well, justification of the use of force, including deadly force, would be highly dependent on the typical rules. ie, disparity of force, fear for life, etc. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

June 19, 2009, 05:35 PM	#144
KLRANGL Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2008 Location: Fredericksburg, VA Posts: 958	Outcast, sorry I don't buy your argument. Not fully anyway. You can confront someone without having forced them into attacking you. If they do attack you, it isn't because you made them. Sure going outside increases the risk of them attacking you, but it doesn't cause it. Girls that wear short skirts in public don't cause guys to rape them... The risk should be accounted for when you are making the decision on what to do. Me personally, I'd probably just stay inside because to me its not worth the risk. But I wouldn't fault someone for going out. __________________ And it's Killer Angel... as in the book

June 19, 2009, 02:46 PM	#126
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,971	Another "Kill em all" type of thread. The weapon is for personal protection when all else fails and it is the last resort. Never is it to be the first thing we go to. The weapon is a powerful tool, it can change everything in the blink of an eye. I would have done it differently, of this I am sure.

June 19, 2009, 02:58 PM	#131
Re4mer Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2008 Posts: 240	I think we should all give the gun owner the benefit of the doubt on this one. We all know how the media likes to spin things and frankly had this poor man not had his gun the kid probably would have beat him senseless. Also I don't think he was necessarily wrong to confront the kid it was his property and the guy was arguing about getting a crack pipe back for crying out loud!

June 19, 2009, 03:13 PM	#134
doh_312 Senior Member Join Date: October 31, 2008 Posts: 312	I'm in agreement with the shooter here. Totally justified in my view. If your on someone elses property and they have a rifle trained on you, I suggest you leave. If you do not, and especially if you advance on the rifle weilding property owner, then you are choosing to get shot at.

June 19, 2009, 03:19 PM	#135
nstoolman1 Member Join Date: September 30, 2007 Location: BOISE, ID Posts: 82	I read the article. Going strictly on the presented information I don't feel it was a shooting over property but one of a perceived danger to the homeowner. I feel it should not matter whether you are outside your house or on the property. Why should a person who is fortunate enough to CCW have more rights to defend themselves while off of their property and the homeowner in order to have a "justified reason" to shoot has to run inside the house. Dying outside is just as bad as dying inside. I don't think a bad guy is going to wait for you to get in the house before they start shooting. Someone is going to get one in the back. I firmly believe that the more the bad guys know that there is an armed society not afraid to defend themselves the fewer would try. Years ago when the Night Stalker hit Southern Calif. gun sales skyrocketed and house crimes dropped like a rock. Would you break in to a home you suspected that a gun was waiting on the other side? This is just my opinion. Thanks for reading.

June 19, 2009, 03:46 PM	#137
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,787	There have been a series of posts portraying the gun owner as having left his house with a gun to protect his stuff. I'm not entirely sure that is accurate, even though an earlier post of mine asked us all to consider whether there may have been some justification in the man trying to keep his tools and equipment - his means of making a living - from being stolen in a neighborhood where theft of similar items had already been known to occur. Rather, it seems to me that he left his house hoping that his presence and witness would deter the theft, and took his rifle with him in case the situation escalated to a deadly threat. Is this not why some of us get concealed weapons permits and carry on a daily basis? Not to seek out trouble, but to be prepared for escalation of the mundane everyday threads into a deadly situation? Do we condemn the man for being prepared for the escalation that actually occurred in the substance of the teen advancing on him? That seems to me to be pragmatism, of the same source that most or all of us hereon practice, rather than blood lust.

June 19, 2009, 07:17 PM	#148
Hank15 Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2009 Location: California Posts: 437	Guys, don't look at everything from a legal perspective. If this was your old stubborn grandfather, I am sure you'd support him rather than give him all the legal BS.

June 19, 2009, 08:24 PM	#150
Hank15 Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2009 Location: California Posts: 437	What's the mailbox soundbite infra thing about? I don't think I read it. And to answer your question, if I have a son in the future, I don't see him pulling off any stunts like that, not if I raise him right. WildAlaska, I told people to think of the old man as their grandfather with your response in mind. I don't see myself correcting my 82 year old grandfather, but I do see myself raising my son correctly so that he doesn't do the stuff mentioned in the article. That's why I only told people to imagine that the old man was their grandfather, but mentioned nothing about the decedent.