Harry_Seldon: iq_in_binary: 5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

Isn't better that he is not dead? Less paperwork.

Depending on the state, dead men's families don't sue for pain and suffering. Live men and their families do it all the time.

So no, actually, not less paperwork. More exposure to having your life ruined despite being the victim of a traumatic crime.

Loaded Six String: Flakeloaf: vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

If you live in a civilized country where people don't blow each other away for standing outside an outhouse, turn to 318.

If you live in a barren wasteland without a functioning shred of humanity, turn to 83.

Turn to page 95 if you have the dignity and honor to not steal from or harm anyone else even if you're starving.

Jackass.

So he wasn't shot because he was threatening, he was shot because in your view he's subhuman?

Usually when you move the goalposts, it's TOWARDS the ball.

Flakeloaf: Fail in Human Form: Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.

Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

The presumption that someone being in your house intends to start murdering all humanity in a twenty yard radius is what's ridiculous here. The fact that someone codified it doesn't make it any less stupid.

Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

the_chief: Just because you can shoot somebody in the face for forcibly invading your home, doesn't mean you should.

Yes you should.

vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

Lessee...

Since you keep guns in your bathroom, you're drinking beer at 3 a.m. and stumbling to the outhouse in the middle of the night, I'm guessing that this story ends with you hearing the cat fighting a raccoon, you grabbing the nearest firearm (probably a sawed-off 30-30), lunging for the door and forgetting you have your pants around your ankles, falling facedown into the mud at the entrance of the outhouse with the shotgun between your knees, the blast blows off your left big toe, and the recoil clips your balls, leaving you swearing and limping back to the house bleeding and with a burn it's going to be tough to explain to your wife.

But the raccoon gets away.

Ima4nic8or: Flakeloaf: Ima4nic8or: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

He absolutely deserves it. He was a threat to the lives of the homeowner and her children. No sympathy here. He pounded on the door even after the women shouted at her kids not to answer it. He knew someone was home when he broke in.

Prove he heard her.
Yeah in all good sense you're more likely right than wrong, but reasonable doubt is a higher burden than that. The article doesn't say he threatened her, but it doesn't say he didn't know anyone was home either.

Fortunately for her she didnt need to show he is guilty of anything to defend herself. Doesnt much matter whether he is classified as a home invader or not, the only apparent alternative the woman had was to just trust that he wasnt going to hurt her or her kids (not a bet I would take). There is little information on the layout of the space but it sounds like she was pretty much backed in a corner with no way out and was facing a bad guy.

Like yelling "Get the fark out of my house!" and giving him three steamboats to decide what to do next? Cause that seems a lot more reasonable than ending someone's life for breaking in and taking some property.

But I wasn't there so I can't say what happened. Maybe he saw her and raised his weapon, or pulled out his dick, or reached for a sword and said he was Inigo Montoya, or gave her a whole host of reasons to have a reasonable fear of death. None of that is mentioned in the article. From the way it's written, she hides in the closet, he finds her, pop pop.

This will in no way devolve into a troll thread about guns.

Loaded Six String: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

What about 9x18 makarov?

Is actually less powerful than .380 ACP, therefore under the threshold. I go by muzzle energy on average. Anything more than 350 or so ft/lbf is above the threshold for  semi-auto pistols.

iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.

OK, I'll bite. FTFA:

"He allegedly rummaged through the home, eventually working his way up to the attic office.
'He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,' said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld.
The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater was still conscious."
There's no way of knowing if 1) the woman would have been in a position to issue a verbal warning for him to cease and desist and 2) he would have complied with the warning. In a perfect world, he would have realized she had the drop on him and bugged out or failing that, he would have hesitated, she would have warned him and he would have backed off. But since she has only has precious seconds to make that kind of assessment, I say she's better off safe than sorry.

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

Amusement: What bugs me is why she needed to shoot 5 times. Gun control ain't about gun possession. Seems sorta inhumane to shoot five times to the face. Thinks ammo is semi wad cutter 158 grain soft lead @ 725 feet per second. 9mm is unimpressed.

Sounds like this guys head is not vital anatomy.

Loaded Six String: So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.

Yes. Not necessarily.

And being unwilling to trust somebody and actually perceiving a real threat of harm from someone who is, at least according to the article, merely standing there holding my stuff, is still quite a leap. Being a thief ain't a hangin crime.

jimmiejaz: Knock knock....
*no answer*
_call hubby at work_ "hide the kids" (hubby calls 911)
...hubby expecting trouble?

Who, this guy?

MurphyMurphy: This will in no way devolve into a troll thread about guns.

Fail in Human Form: Amusement: What bugs me is why she needed to shoot 5 times. Gun control ain't about gun possession. Seems sorta inhumane to shoot five times to the face. Thinks ammo is semi wad cutter 158 grain soft lead @ 725 feet per second. 9mm is unimpressed.

I keep my snub nose .38 loaded with 158grain +P LSWCHP (the "FBI load"). Those would have been perfectly adequate here and the criminal probably wouldn't have had a head left.

Are you talking about a .38 Special? 158gr is pretty damn heavy for a .380 ACP.

iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

Prove he knew someone was home.

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

Prove he knew someone was home.

Prove he didn't. He was the one who B&E'd into an occupied home. The occupants have absolutely no duty to be sure of his intent. He's the one that has to justify his actions, not the victims.

hundreddollarman: There's no way of knowing if 1) the woman would have been in a position to issue a verbal warning for him to cease and desist and 2) he would have complied with the warning. In a perfect world, he would have realized she had the drop on him and bugged out or failing that, he would have hesitated, she would have warned him and he would have backed off. But since she has only has precious seconds to make that kind of assessment, I say she's better off safe than sorry.

And this is why journalists should learn the craft of journalism. Stops us from wondering about stuff like this.

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

Prove he knew someone was home.

I am all in favor of people breaking into homes being in danger of being shot. There's a simple way for them to avoid it, don't be a farking criminal.

Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.

Flakeloaf: But I wasn't there so I can't say what happened. Maybe he saw her and raised his weapon, or pulled out his dick, or reached for a sword and said he was Inigo Montoya, or gave her a whole host of reasons to have a reasonable fear of death. None of that is mentioned in the article. From the way it's written, she hides in the closet, he finds her, pop pop.

Having acknowledged this, why are you basing your argument on speculations about what she should have done based on the level of threat you think he presented? Your arguments have all been "you have no proof he did...you have no proof she didn't...just because he didn't..." No, and you don't either. You weren't there, the article is very light on details, and that's what we know. Now, it's possible to infer, from the fact that she wasn't hauled off to jail, that she was PROBABLY in fear enough of her life to justify what she did and told a story that the cops accepted, and possible to construct, from that inference, a likely scenario that would have given her that justification, and that's all people have been doing.

But the simple fact is that breaking into someone's house, no matter what YOU may think is right or wrong, gives the homeowner a rebuttable presumption that the intruder is there to do him harm, and an affirmative right to shoot first and ask questions later. In your own home, you don't have to wait till the intruder tries to harm you first, or give him reasonable chance to flee, or any of the other things you might have to do on the street. He broke into your house, you may defend yourself up to and including deadly force period.

There are a few exceptions, like if he's already on his way out, or if you clearly know you are not at risk; and you might morally and ethically want to wait to make sure it's not just your kid playing a prank; but if the intruder is inside your house, the laws are on your side. As I said, just because YOU may not like that fact, it's nonetheless the truth. And since none of us here knows exactly what happened, all this is just speculation. Including your saying "It doesn't sound like he did anything to warrant being shot." No, it doesn't. Because you don't know what happened either.