Unusual intruder shooting case
- Thread starter Sam2000
- Start date
- Status
A person has a right to self-defense in their home but that does not mean you can shoot somebody who is not posing a threat to you. Unless the person who breaks in is coming at you it is not a good idea to shoot. If you confront them with a gun and they run-let them run. And of course call the cops.
Look at what happened in I think it was Minnesota where that elderly guy shot those two teenagers in his home. Yes they were apparently repeatedly breaking into his home. He was in the basement with a gun when the teenage boy started to come down the stairs. He could have confronted the teenager with the gun and if the kid runs-let him run. And let the police take care of it. If the kid would have come at him-it is justified to shoot. And then he waited for the teenage girl to come looking for her (I think it was her cousin) and he wounded her, and then coldly
administered a kill shot under her chin.
The guy with the shotgun blasts blindly four times into the garage. And actually he had kind of set up a trap because somebody was breaking in.
Let the police or the sheriff deputies take care of it if possible. Defend yourself but don't shoot if the intruder runs and don't coldly apply a kill shot.
This should all be common sense. I understand people getting frustrated if somebody is repeatedly breaking in and all of that. You can defend yourself. But don't act like Vlad the Impairer.
Look at what happened in I think it was Minnesota where that elderly guy shot those two teenagers in his home. Yes they were apparently repeatedly breaking into his home. He was in the basement with a gun when the teenage boy started to come down the stairs. He could have confronted the teenager with the gun and if the kid runs-let him run. And let the police take care of it. If the kid would have come at him-it is justified to shoot. And then he waited for the teenage girl to come looking for her (I think it was her cousin) and he wounded her, and then coldly
administered a kill shot under her chin.
The guy with the shotgun blasts blindly four times into the garage. And actually he had kind of set up a trap because somebody was breaking in.
Let the police or the sheriff deputies take care of it if possible. Defend yourself but don't shoot if the intruder runs and don't coldly apply a kill shot.
This should all be common sense. I understand people getting frustrated if somebody is repeatedly breaking in and all of that. You can defend yourself. But don't act like Vlad the Impairer.
Fact is it was clear to me that considering the homeowner's property had been violated by breaking and entering and trespassing he had every right to believe that his life could easily be in danger, the repeated, belligerent invasions prove this. It shows that the perps were bold, and agressive, he was lucky he wasn't there the first two times because he very well could have been injured or killed by those invaders onto his property.
The homeowner had an "expectation" of an imminent threat to his life.
The homeowner had an "expectation" of an imminent threat to his life.
Last edited:
I think people wanting to get involved or not get involved has a lot to do with where they were raised. If a neighbor leaves a door open and I think something is wrong I will call them. I live on a dead end and we're all good friends who look out for one another.
OTOH coming from East NY, I learned at a very young age to MYOB when it comes to complete strangers and their property. People get killed sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
OTOH coming from East NY, I learned at a very young age to MYOB when it comes to complete strangers and their property. People get killed sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Fact is it was clear to me that considering the homeowner's property had been violated by breaking and entering and trespassing he had every right to believe that his life could easily be in danger, the repeated, belligerent invasions prove this. It shows that the perps were bold, and agressive, he was lucky he wasn't there the first two times because he very well could have been injured or killed by those invaders onto his property.
The homeowner had an "expectation" of an imminent threat to his life.
He and his family were there during a previous burglary.
Fact is it was clear to me that considering the homeowner's property had been violated by breaking and entering and trespassing he had every right to believe that his life could easily be in danger, the repeated, belligerent invasions prove this. It shows that the perps were bold, and agressive, he was lucky he wasn't there the first two times because he very well could have been injured or killed by those invaders onto his property.
The homeowner had an "expectation" of an imminent threat to his life.
He and his family were there during a previous burglary.
One other thing. This guy smoked weed in the garage and routinely left it open for airing.
This kid lived really close by.
There is a possibility that the shooter unwittingly attracted kids to his open garage to steal his weed.
He probably knew full well that that is what was happening which is why he declared that he was going to shoot a kid.
This kid lived really close by.
There is a possibility that the shooter unwittingly attracted kids to his open garage to steal his weed.
He probably knew full well that that is what was happening which is why he declared that he was going to shoot a kid.
The perps were 16 and 17 from what I recall, so they were old enough to know better.
I didn't know that the homeowner was actually present during
a robbery. That would be even more support for the homeowner feeling under siege, and threatened.
I didn't know that the homeowner was actually present during
a robbery. That would be even more support for the homeowner feeling under siege, and threatened.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
The perps were 16 and 17 from what I recall, so they were old enough to know better.
I didn't know that the homeowner was actually present during
a robbery. That would be even more support for the homeowner feeling under siege, and threatened.
Yeah, somebody was ripping off his pot. Obviously a great motive to blow their brains out right?
Perhaps they were conspiring with the NWO?
The perps were 16 and 17 from what I recall, so they were old enough to know better.
I didn't know that the homeowner was actually present during
a robbery. That would be even more support for the homeowner feeling under siege, and threatened.
Yeah, somebody was ripping off his pot. Obviously a great motive to blow their brains out right?
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But don't act like Vlad the Impairer.
Who?
I think he means Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. His father was Vlad II Dracul. Thus his patronymic would be Vlad Dracul. Or Dragwlya (or Dragkwlya) Dragulea, Dragolea, depending on how you want to spell it.
Wasn't known as Vlad the Impaler until after his death.
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But don't act like Vlad the Impairer.
Who?
I think he means Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. His father was Vlad II Dracul. Thus his patronymic would be Vlad Dracul. Or Dragwlya (or Dragkwlya) Dragulea, Dragolea, depending on how you want to spell it.
Wasn't known as Vlad the Impaler until after his death.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But don't act like Vlad the Impairer.
Who?
I think he means Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. His father was Vlad II Dracul. Thus his patronymic would be Vlad Dracul. Or Dragwlya (or Dragkwlya) Dragulea, Dragolea, depending on how you want to spell it.
Wasn't known as Vlad the Impalier until after his death.
Ahhh Vlad the Impaler not Vlad the Impairer.
I hear he doesn't take too kindly to having his name misspelt. Better watch out.
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But don't act like Vlad the Impairer.
Who?
I think he means Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. His father was Vlad II Dracul. Thus his patronymic would be Vlad Dracul. Or Dragwlya (or Dragkwlya) Dragulea, Dragolea, depending on how you want to spell it.
Wasn't known as Vlad the Impalier until after his death.
Ahhh Vlad the Impaler not Vlad the Impairer.
I hear he doesn't take too kindly to having his name misspelt. Better watch out.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
The perps were 16 and 17 from what I recall, so they were old enough to know better.
I didn't know that the homeowner was actually present during
a robbery. That would be even more support for the homeowner feeling under siege, and threatened.
Yeah, somebody was ripping off his pot. Obviously a great motive to blow their brains out right?
Perhaps they were conspiring with the NWO?
Couldn't exactly call the cops on that one
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
The perps were 16 and 17 from what I recall, so they were old enough to know better.
I didn't know that the homeowner was actually present during
a robbery. That would be even more support for the homeowner feeling under siege, and threatened.
Yeah, somebody was ripping off his pot. Obviously a great motive to blow their brains out right?
Couldn't exactly call the cops on that one
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But don't act like Vlad the Impairer.
Who?
I think he means Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. His father was Vlad II Dracul. Thus his patronymic would be Vlad Dracul. Or Dragwlya (or Dragkwlya) Dragulea, Dragolea, depending on how you want to spell it.
Wasn't known as Vlad the Impalier until after his death.
(I noticed I misspelled impaler, fixed it.)
Ahhh Vlad the Impaler not Vlad the Impairer.
I hear he doesn't take too kindly to having his name misspelt. Better watch out.
Not too worried. I'll just call Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Originally Posted By: Mystic
But don't act like Vlad the Impairer.
Who?
I think he means Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. His father was Vlad II Dracul. Thus his patronymic would be Vlad Dracul. Or Dragwlya (or Dragkwlya) Dragulea, Dragolea, depending on how you want to spell it.
Wasn't known as Vlad the Impalier until after his death.
(I noticed I misspelled impaler, fixed it.)
Ahhh Vlad the Impaler not Vlad the Impairer.
I hear he doesn't take too kindly to having his name misspelt. Better watch out.
Not too worried. I'll just call Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Last edited:
With all the incoming ridicule concerning my posts I'm feeling increasingly confident that this homeowner will not be convicted.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Fact is it was clear to me that considering the homeowner's property had been violated by breaking and entering and trespassing he had every right to believe that his life could easily be in danger, the repeated, belligerent invasions prove this. It shows that the perps were bold, and agressive, he was lucky he wasn't there the first two times because he very well could have been injured or killed by those invaders onto his property.
The homeowner had an "expectation" of an imminent threat to his life.
You are twisting and distorting the facts as presented.
First off the shooter was in the house. He had the garage acoustically trapped and when he heard the victim enter the garage the shooter then sought out the victim and shot indescriminately into the garage space.
So let's be clear. The "perp" was in the garage and he shooter,who was alerted that his bait was getting nibbled,chose to seek out and fire upon the victim,instead of calling the cops.
The only danger the homeowner was exposed to was brought upon himself when he chose to confront the victim.
Had the shooter stayed in his home and called the cops, instead of choosing to put himself in harms way then the proper authorities would have been on scene and a proper threat assessment made.
Let's just simplify and condense the whole scenario.
Homeowner baits garage,leaves it open with sound traps to alert him of an intruder.
Intruder enters garage. Homeowner leaves the safety of his home and confronts intruder killing him.
So instead of calling the cops first,then heading out he murdered a kid because of past experiences and he was going to deal out his own justice.
Your right antique shell. It's plain as day.
Homeowner is gonna catch a beef without a doubt.
It was a simple bait style hunt,only the prey was a person
Fact is it was clear to me that considering the homeowner's property had been violated by breaking and entering and trespassing he had every right to believe that his life could easily be in danger, the repeated, belligerent invasions prove this. It shows that the perps were bold, and agressive, he was lucky he wasn't there the first two times because he very well could have been injured or killed by those invaders onto his property.
The homeowner had an "expectation" of an imminent threat to his life.
You are twisting and distorting the facts as presented.
First off the shooter was in the house. He had the garage acoustically trapped and when he heard the victim enter the garage the shooter then sought out the victim and shot indescriminately into the garage space.
So let's be clear. The "perp" was in the garage and he shooter,who was alerted that his bait was getting nibbled,chose to seek out and fire upon the victim,instead of calling the cops.
The only danger the homeowner was exposed to was brought upon himself when he chose to confront the victim.
Had the shooter stayed in his home and called the cops, instead of choosing to put himself in harms way then the proper authorities would have been on scene and a proper threat assessment made.
Let's just simplify and condense the whole scenario.
Homeowner baits garage,leaves it open with sound traps to alert him of an intruder.
Intruder enters garage. Homeowner leaves the safety of his home and confronts intruder killing him.
So instead of calling the cops first,then heading out he murdered a kid because of past experiences and he was going to deal out his own justice.
Your right antique shell. It's plain as day.
Homeowner is gonna catch a beef without a doubt.
It was a simple bait style hunt,only the prey was a person
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
With all the incoming ridicule concerning my posts I'm feeling increasingly confident that this homeowner will not be convicted.
Thanks!
Don't see how the two are or could in any possible way be related.
Could you make one of those conspiracy videos to educate us?
With all the incoming ridicule concerning my posts I'm feeling increasingly confident that this homeowner will not be convicted.
Thanks!
Don't see how the two are or could in any possible way be related.
Could you make one of those conspiracy videos to educate us?
Originally Posted By: Sam2000
Don't see how the two are or could in any possible way be related.
Could you make one of those conspiracy videos to educate us?
It's like a full onslaught of hornets on sting mode...LOL except they are lawyers.
Just remember that jury candidates (like myself) are very careful to answer questions in such a way that( even though I would automatically vote not guilty on all charges) the questioner would think I was the perfect juror to get a conviction.
Don't see how the two are or could in any possible way be related.
Could you make one of those conspiracy videos to educate us?
It's like a full onslaught of hornets on sting mode...LOL except they are lawyers.
Just remember that jury candidates (like myself) are very careful to answer questions in such a way that( even though I would automatically vote not guilty on all charges) the questioner would think I was the perfect juror to get a conviction.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
