92 Year Old Shoots and Kills Burglar

Pico wrote:

crump wrote:You are allowed to take appropiate force on the robber.

Obviously if some 20 stone burgular is facing a fraile old man the old man is in his rights to probably seriously injure him.

If its some 15 year old rat robbing the 20 stone burglars house it's probably unessecary to shoot him unless he his bearing a weapon of similar force.

How would they put that rule into legislation? "You can use a gun but only if the guy is bigger than you."

Reasonable force. They have similar rules in a few counties. In Australia if you use professional martial arts against somebody to defend yourself, you can get into trouble for using "excessive force". .

Anyway isn't it very hard and expensive to legally own an automatic machine gun in the US? Banning them wouldn't stop criminals from getting their filthy paws on them, most of them probably acquire them from the black market anyway.

Grenade wrote:

Pico wrote:

How would they put that rule into legislation? "You can use a gun but only if the guy is bigger than you."

Reasonable force. They have similar rules in a few counties. In Australia if you use professional martial arts against somebody to defend yourself, you can get into trouble for using "excessive force". .

Anyway isn't it very hard and expensive to legally own an automatic machine gun in the US? Banning them wouldn't stop criminals from getting their filthy paws on them, most of them probably acquire them from the black market anyway.

One car company in America was giving AK47s away when bought a truck not long ago.

You still needed to register it and get a permit. The ammo is expensive as well.

Yeah I'm just saying it's not that difficult to get one. The car company said sales doubled when the offer came out. I doubt people were more willing to buy if they were unable to get a permit.

dena wrote:

crump wrote:You are allowed to take appropiate force on the robber.

Obviously if some 20 stone burgular is facing a fraile old man the old man is in his rights to probably seriously injure him.

If its some 15 year old rat robbing the 20 stone burglars house it's probably unessecary to shoot him unless he his bearing a weapon of similar force.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Fuck yo' couch

Good on the pensioner. If the Burglar wasn't burgling, it wouldn't have happened.

One of my family members was close to getting robbed about a year ago, but when they burglar was confronted he ran away. When the police arrived afterwards they asked the officer how he would recommend dealing with a possible intruder with a weapon, and the officer said to make sure you kill them because you could end up in way more trouble if you don't.

Dan wrote:http://news.cincinnati.com/VideoNetwork/1822997437001/92-Year-Old-Shoots-and-Kills-Burglar


Good from him. Guns should still be illegal though.

Good for him? He killed a burglar. So should we start handing out death sentences for robbery?

menalawyerguy wrote:

Ché Guayaba wrote:The only thing that should be ban are assault rifles.(and submachine guns) You can't even use the "to defend my property" excuse on those. It's in the fucking name, "assault" it's to attack not defend. There is absolutely no reason why someone should own an AK 47.

Pistols, shotguns and bolt action rifles can at least be defended.

The problem is in how they are being classified. Just because you slap "assault" on it doesn't mean the debate is over. A lot of weapons that have been classed as assault weapons aren't really assault weapons and all you do by banning them is further limit law abiding citizens on their lawful protection options.

Guns were invented with the intention of killing. They are all "offensive" weapons.

ahlycotc wrote:

Dan wrote:http://news.cincinnati.com/VideoNetwork/1822997437001/92-Year-Old-Shoots-and-Kills-Burglar


Good from him. Guns should still be illegal though.

Good for him? He killed a burglar. So should we start handing out death sentences for robbery?

Excuse me, but please show me where I advocated that stance?


As for the topic you've presented, I feel the death penalty is moronic anyway.

ahlycotc wrote:

Dan wrote:http://news.cincinnati.com/VideoNetwork/1822997437001/92-Year-Old-Shoots-and-Kills-Burglar


Good from him. Guns should still be illegal though.

Good for him? He killed a burglar. So should we start handing out death sentences for robbery?

menalawyerguy wrote:

The problem is in how they are being classified. Just because you slap "assault" on it doesn't mean the debate is over. A lot of weapons that have been classed as assault weapons aren't really assault weapons and all you do by banning them is further limit law abiding citizens on their lawful protection options.

Guns were invented with the intention of killing. They are all "offensive" weapons.

So there's absolutely no defensive purpose for a gun?

menalawyerguy wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Good for him? He killed a burglar. So should we start handing out death sentences for robbery?



Guns were invented with the intention of killing. They are all "offensive" weapons.

So there's absolutely no defensive purpose for a gun?

Wouldn't be needed for defensive if guns were illegal and were harder to get anywhere.

---

i was initially with the guy getting off but i've realsied that he is a murder and should've held him a gun point or shot him in the leg.
No need to kill him.

Childish Logic wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:So there's absolutely no defensive purpose for a gun?

Wouldn't be needed for defensive if guns were illegal and were harder to get anywhere.

Nonsense. Making guns illegal only ensures that criminals are the only ones who are armed. You can't make guns disappear just by making them illegal.

Childish Logic wrote:

i was initially with the guy getting off but i've realsied that he is a murder and should've held him a gun point or shot him in the leg.
No need to kill him.

Who do you think this guy is, GI Joe? Somebody invaded his home. He didn't know what the invader intended. He defended himself by pointing and shooting. You think you'd have the poise at 92 years old to fully analyze the situation in a matter of seconds and pull of a calculated precision shot to the guy's leg?

menalawyerguy wrote:

Childish Logic wrote:

i was initially with the guy getting off but i've realsied that he is a murder and should've held him a gun point or shot him in the leg.
No need to kill him.

Who do you think this guy is, GI Joe? Somebody invaded his home. He didn't know what the invader intended. He defended himself by pointing and shooting. You think you'd have the poise at 92 years old to fully analyze the situation in a matter of seconds and pull of a calculated precision shot to the guy's leg?

“I knew he was gonna open the door from the basement, cause that’s how you get in here"

“I aimed right for his heart…I didn’t go to war for nothing. I have the right to carry a gun. That’s what I told the police.”

“Was I scared? Was I mad? Hell, no…It was simple. That man was going to take my life. He was hunting me. I was protecting myself.”

“Why?! I’m a military man…I’m not going to dial somebody and have to wait for somebody…If I hadn’t shot him, he’d have been in here attacking me.”
Even though, according to police, this was the third burglary on Jones’ farm this year, Jones says police that responded still forced him to put his hands in the air, even after declaring himself the owner of the property.
---
Old man knew what he was doing, saying oh he was gonna try to kill me is no excuse. Guy forced his way in and before he even did anything to the old man, old man shot him. Aimed for his heart to kill him.

Was in the military so he could handle a gun.



-edit-

the oh he was gonna kill me part is because he didn't know for sure he was gonna kill him.

Exactly. He didn't know. It was perfectly reasonable for him to assume that the guy might try to kill him. If you reasonably believe somebody is going to kill you, you should have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.

It's good to see you're taking you're username seriously..

I'd defend this guy myself if it didn't mean that I'd have to go to Kentucky.

menalawyerguy wrote:Exactly. He didn't know. It was perfectly reasonable for him to assume that the guy might try to kill him. If you reasonably believe somebody is going to kill you, you should have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.

reasonably believe? He broke in from the basement, from my understanding was not armed and he was previously robbed without him getting hurt.

Everything points to him getting robbed again like normal (he could of installed cameras or some shit if he was so fed up over it). The robber busts into the door and instead of shouting freeze(which is the reasonably thing considering he has the upper hand), he decides to kill him directly. Also he could of simply hid around a corner and taken a look at what the robber was doing, holding before he decided to confront him.

Letting him get away with using more force than necessary only helps instill the belief that you can do anything you want as long as the other guy is 'bad'.

If somebody breaks in to your house, you are perfectly within reason to conclude that there's a chance he will do you harm if you try to stop him. I don't see how it's fair to the home owner to impose an obligation on him to assume that the guy who just entered his home without his permission is going to be peaceful about it.

menalawyerguy wrote:If somebody breaks in to your house, you are perfectly within reason to conclude that there's a chance he will do you harm if you try to stop him. I don't see how it's fair to the home owner to impose an obligation on him to assume that the guy who just entered his home without his permission is going to be peaceful about it.

There is peaceful, there is threatening to harm someone, then there is shooting someone without a care in the world.

You can't assume that just because someone is breaking into your house that they will harm you.

Also it's not about fairness, it's about doing the lawful thing. Just because you have an assumption doesn't give you the right to take somebody from this earth.

Childish Logic wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:If somebody breaks in to your house, you are perfectly within reason to conclude that there's a chance he will do you harm if you try to stop him. I don't see how it's fair to the home owner to impose an obligation on him to assume that the guy who just entered his home without his permission is going to be peaceful about it.

There is peaceful, there is threatening to harm someone, then there is shooting someone without a care in the world.

You can't assume that just because someone is breaking into your house that they will harm you.

Also it's not about fairness, it's about doing the lawful thing. Just because you have an assumption doesn't give you the right to take somebody from this earth.

So what should he do then? Wait until the guy breaks through the basement, calmly ask the burglar of his intentions and work from there?

He made a judgement call, the guy was 92. He felt in danger from the guy breaking into his house. What would the robber have done if the man had just sat there? Who knows. But there's always a risk that he would come to harm and he decided to protect himself.

There was enough time to gauge how dangerous the burglar was.

He was sitting 10 feet from the door.

When the burglar opened the door the old man should have shouted, " I have a gun". Shit, he heard him walking up the stairs, he could have shouted as the burglar was walking up them. If the burglar continues to approach you, blast him. Simple.

The old man had an unreal upper hand. He could have took cover anywhere as he shouted.

But no, he remained quiet. He let the burglar think there was no one there then shot him before he knew what had happened.

This is murder. He wasn't defending his life, he was trying to send out a warning to other burglars.

ORDER ORDER!!

menalawyerguy wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Good for him? He killed a burglar. So should we start handing out death sentences for robbery?



Guns were invented with the intention of killing. They are all "offensive" weapons.

So there's absolutely no defensive purpose for a gun?

There is, but this old man did not use it in a defensive manner. He was going for the offense (just like guns are intended for). A gun becomes defensive when someone is attacking you and you shoot their leg or something to stop them, but not kill them. Considering that in most cases, guns aren't used "defensively", it's better if they were outlawed and people used other weapons defensively like tasers, bats, pepper spray, non lethal guns, etc.

Never has a username been more appropriate, Childish Logic. In the heat of the moment few people have the peace of mind to consider all the possibilities one you realize your home is being broken in to, more often than not the most aggressive action is the safest.

CollieBuddz wrote:There was enough time to gauge how dangerous the burglar was.

He was sitting 10 feet from the door.

When the burglar opened the door the old man should have shouted, " I have a gun". Shit, he heard him walking up the stairs, he could have shouted as the burglar was walking up them. If the burglar continues to approach you, blast him. Simple.

The old man had an unreal upper hand. He could have took cover anywhere as he shouted.

But no, he remained quiet. He let the burglar think there was no one there then shot him before he knew what had happened.

This is murder. He wasn't defending his life, he was trying to send out a warning to other burglars.

I want to agree with this but I've had my house burgled twice and the last thing that came to my mind on both occasions was to try and reason with them.

This guy was 92 ffs, chill out. Good on him.

Novi wrote:This guy was 92 ffs, chill out. Good on him.

This is a good point. In fact, we should applaud him for still having good enough eyesight to hit the target.

dena wrote:Never has a username been more appropriate, Childish Logic. In the heat of the moment few people have the peace of mind to consider all the possibilities one you realize your home is being broken in to, more often than not the most aggressive action is the safest.

The point is, he wasn't in the heat of the moment. He knew what he was gonna do long before he interacted with the burglar.

He was thinking about killing him instead of just stopping him.

“I aimed right for his heart…I didn’t go to war for nothing."

“Was I scared? Was I mad? Hell, no…"

Marvin wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:There was enough time to gauge how dangerous the burglar was.

He was sitting 10 feet from the door.

When the burglar opened the door the old man should have shouted, " I have a gun". Shit, he heard him walking up the stairs, he could have shouted as the burglar was walking up them. If the burglar continues to approach you, blast him. Simple.

The old man had an unreal upper hand. He could have took cover anywhere as he shouted.

But no, he remained quiet. He let the burglar think there was no one there then shot him before he knew what had happened.

This is murder. He wasn't defending his life, he was trying to send out a warning to other burglars.

I want to agree with this but I've had my house burgled twice and the last thing that came to my mind on both occasions was to try and reason with them.

I'm not saying reason with them. Just in the situation the old man was in, he should have announced he had a gun.

If someone is within striking range to you in your house and they're not retreating, defend yourself by all means. If it's with a gun, I'm not saying do some pussy leg shot. Shoot the cunts in the head. You have every reason to believe they're attempting to harm you if they're that close to in your own house.

But if they're a good ten yards away and you're holding a gun, you should announce your intentions because you know with a gun there's a good chance you'll take their life and taking a life for burglary is wrong.

If you're holding a bat, I don't care. Do what you want, even if they're retreating, give them a little donk on the head.

Goes without saying, but the whole game changes when you have a gun.