Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Atlanta Journal Constitution)   "When you got five bullets in you, it makes you kind of disoriented"   (ajc.com) divider line 348
    More: Scary, gunshots, Gwinnett County  
•       •       •

9298 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2013 at 12:40 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



348 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-05 01:45:16 AM  

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Nice try, twerp.

/you still aren't getting them
//ever

Aren't you precious.


As a matter of fact, I am.

There are people in this country that will oppose you, no matter what. Know that.
 
2013-01-05 01:45:36 AM  
static.film.it
 
2013-01-05 01:46:30 AM  
movieodyssey.com
 
2013-01-05 01:46:55 AM  

Loaded Six String: This guy with a crowbar, Jack Nickolson with an axe, either one breaks down a door they have no business passing through it is a threatening act


Again, it's a criminal act, not necessarily a threatening one. This is precisely why there are varying degrees when prosecuting felonious acts.
 
2013-01-05 01:47:13 AM  

iq_in_binary:

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.


"My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."

That's likely enough to get him acquitted of home invasion, because knowledge of or recklessness as to the presence of people inside the house is one of the elements of that offence. He's still guilty of B&E of course and that's already a pretty big deal. But he has to get arrested first for any of that to matter, and that brings us to the homeowner's duty of care to him. It's not big, but it's not nil either.

The occupants of the home can't be expected to divine exactly what it is he plans to do while inside, and they are certainly entitled to use such clues as local society and context would offer them to make an educated guess about what it is the person plans to do. If violent home-invasion robberies are common there (the article doesn't say), then maybe perceiving the threat of death would be more reasonable. If you live in a society where someone pounding on your door for a few minutes and then walking inside means he plans to murder everybody well then I genuinely feel sorry for you, not baiting, not trolling. If that really is the way of life where you are, fire away. Unless the homeowner can prove that, then their local use of force laws would apply. Again, if that's castle doctrine then great. In most places it's warn-then-act. "GTFO" and if the guy does anything other than that, use reasonable force to make them leave. What's reasonable... again, really depends on what you and your bad guy are doing. Surprise, the article doesn't say.

Also she got five headshots out of six rounds fired with a revolver against a presumedly moving target while genuinely afraid. That's pretty boss.
 
2013-01-05 01:47:44 AM  

Sherman Potter: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Nice try, twerp.

/you still aren't getting them
//ever

Aren't you precious.

As a matter of fact, I am.

There are people in this country that will oppose you, no matter what. Know that.


There, there. Shhhh. I'll keep the hallway light on, you can go back to sleep. No monsters here.
 
2013-01-05 01:48:50 AM  
www.absolutefiction.com
 
2013-01-05 01:48:53 AM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.


If the presumption is rebuttable, the right to kill cannot be absolute.
 
2013-01-05 01:49:45 AM  

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary:

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.

"My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."

That's likely enough to get him acquitted of home invasion, because knowledge of or recklessness as to the presence of people inside the house is one of the elements of that offence. He's still guilty of B&E of course and that's already a pretty big deal. But he has to get arrested first for any of that to matter, and that brings us to the homeowner's duty of care to him. It's not big, but it's not nil either.

The occupants of the home can't be expected to divine exactly what it is he plans to do while inside, and they are certainly entitled to use such clues as local society and context would offer them to make an educated guess about what it is the person plans to do. If violent home-invasion robberies are common there (the article doesn't say), then maybe perceiving the threat of death would be more reasonable. If you live in a society where someone pounding on your door for a few minutes and then walking inside means he plans to murder everybody well then I genuinely feel sorry for you, not baiting, not trolling. If that really is the way of life where you are, fire away. Unless the homeowner can prove that, then their local use of force laws would apply. Again, if that's castle doctrine then great. In most places it's warn-then-act. "GTFO" and ...


"Holds up Ohio Revised Code, mainly the castle doctrine" - If a person breaks into your house there is an automatic assumption of death or grave bodily harm to the occupants and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self and family.

*case dismissed*
 
2013-01-05 01:49:52 AM  

Harry Knutz: Loaded Six String: This guy with a crowbar, Jack Nickolson with an axe, either one breaks down a door they have no business passing through it is a threatening act

Again, it's a criminal act, not necessarily a threatening one. This is precisely why there are varying degrees when prosecuting felonious acts.


Breaking into someones home is a personal violation, the criminal doing so has abandoned the requirements of society, and should face the highest possible risks for doing so.
 
2013-01-05 01:50:09 AM  
Look, I would prob. be labled a "libtard" by many fark posters. That being said if anyone forces there way into my house, at anytime night or day, and they are not the police, either. 357 158 grain hollow points or. 45 Cal full metal jackets are heading their way. No questions asked, let the legal chips fall where they may. My families safety comes first. If they still squirm, id stand on their neck till the police got there (after a few nut kicks.) Don't come into my castle uninvited if you don't want to die.
 
2013-01-05 01:50:31 AM  

Canton: Clearly she knew how to handle the gun.


Six shots point blank and the guy drove away(ok, not far).
 
2013-01-05 01:51:41 AM  
So let me get this straight, 5 bullets in the face and neck and he lived? Time to upgrade to a .45 cal, that .38 spc ain't S**T!
 
HBK
2013-01-05 01:52:16 AM  

Fail in Human Form: HBK: Fail in Human Form: Happened to my family growing up. I posted the story here before. He started knocking and then got more violent when my father wouldn't let him in. Lucky for him he couldn't get the door knocked down (thought he damn near did), otherwise he'd be 6 ft under right now.

In some states, you can blast a home invader through the door, without the criminal even stepping foot in the house. If someone's trying to break into your home, you can shoot them- in some states.

/IANAL

Maybe, but if the same thing happened to me here's what I would do. Tell the girlfriend to lock the bedroom door and arm herself, get 911 on the phone asap, let the invader know the cops are on the way, and then take up a defensive position relative to the door he's trying to get into with my weapon. If he's lucky the cops will get here before the door comes down.


Most doors can be kicked in with one well-placed, stiff kick. I'd forgo calling the cops and have a gun pointed at the door if I realized someone was trying to break in. I guess if the wife were home I'd have her call 911, but I'd probably rather just get ready for the confrontation rather than waste time. It's not a matter of picking a lock, it's a matter of kicking the door as hard as you can two feet below the lock.

/had my house burglarized with a kick to the door.
//buddy broke into a friend's house during hurricane Ike to save her cat with one kick to the door. Per him (a 145 lb guy) "it's surprisingly easy."
 
2013-01-05 01:52:37 AM  

Boojum2k: Breaking into someones home is a personal violation, the criminal doing so has abandoned the requirements of society, and should face the highest possible risks for doing so.


Is there a legal right to use deadly force against someone breaking into your home? In most jurisdictions, yes. But that's not the issue. We are talking about intent. The man's intent was labeled "threatening" without any sort of proof.
 
2013-01-05 01:52:46 AM  

Fail in Human Form: "Holds up Ohio Revised Code, mainly the castle doctrine" - If a person breaks into your house there is an automatic assumption of death or grave bodily harm to the occupants and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self and family.

*case dismissed*


Gwinnett County is in Georgia.
 
2013-01-05 01:52:53 AM  

thorthor: 45 Cal full metal jackets are heading their way.


Get better ammo

/I use Federal Hydra-Shok in my every day carry .45
//I wouldn't recommend it in lower calibers though due to expansion issues
///In my .380 PPK I use Horandy Critical Defense
 
2013-01-05 01:53:11 AM  

Flakeloaf: 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.


Agreed.
 
2013-01-05 01:53:35 AM  

HBK: Fail in Human Form: HBK: Fail in Human Form: Happened to my family growing up. I posted the story here before. He started knocking and then got more violent when my father wouldn't let him in. Lucky for him he couldn't get the door knocked down (thought he damn near did), otherwise he'd be 6 ft under right now.

In some states, you can blast a home invader through the door, without the criminal even stepping foot in the house. If someone's trying to break into your home, you can shoot them- in some states.

/IANAL

Maybe, but if the same thing happened to me here's what I would do. Tell the girlfriend to lock the bedroom door and arm herself, get 911 on the phone asap, let the invader know the cops are on the way, and then take up a defensive position relative to the door he's trying to get into with my weapon. If he's lucky the cops will get here before the door comes down.

Most doors can be kicked in with one well-placed, stiff kick. I'd forgo calling the cops and have a gun pointed at the door if I realized someone was trying to break in. I guess if the wife were home I'd have her call 911, but I'd probably rather just get ready for the confrontation rather than waste time. It's not a matter of picking a lock, it's a matter of kicking the door as hard as you can two feet below the lock.

/had my house burglarized with a kick to the door.
//buddy broke into a friend's house during hurricane Ike to save her cat with one kick to the door. Per him (a 145 lb guy) "it's surprisingly easy."


I have door jams at all entrances =)
 
2013-01-05 01:53:59 AM  

HBK: iq_in_binary: 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.

Really?

.380 ACP rounds are so much lighter, and .38 rounds are freaking huge. I always assumed .38 was a more powerful round.


Argh no they're the same power level, sorry. I was thinking .38 ACP (yes they are different), I've been on an old school Colt kick lately. .38 ACP is a semi-rimmed round used in guns like the Colt M1900, Colt M1902, and M1903 Pocket Hammerless. Quite a few 1911s were chambered for it also. Complete brain fart on my part.

No, this lady was using a .38 Special, a .380 ACP like a Colt Mustang would have been pretty much the same result. .38 Special would be in the same boat. I should clarify that .38 ACP is the threshold caliber for my proposal, NOT .380 ACP, I don't want to have to tax stamp my M1902.
 
2013-01-05 01:54:44 AM  

Flakeloaf: Fail in Human Form: "Holds up Ohio Revised Code, mainly the castle doctrine" - If a person breaks into your house there is an automatic assumption of death or grave bodily harm to the occupants and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self and family.

*case dismissed*

Gwinnett County is in Georgia.


I was giving an example of if it happened to myself, but I believe Georgia has the castle doctrine as well.
 
2013-01-05 01:55:56 AM  
www.grolschfilmworks.com
 
2013-01-05 01:56:37 AM  

Harry Knutz: Boojum2k: Breaking into someones home is a personal violation, the criminal doing so has abandoned the requirements of society, and should face the highest possible risks for doing so.

Is there a legal right to use deadly force against someone breaking into your home? In most jurisdictions, yes. But that's not the issue. We are talking about intent. The man's intent was labeled "threatening" without any sort of proof.


His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.
 
2013-01-05 01:56:58 AM  

Fail in Human Form: thorthor: 45 Cal full metal jackets are heading their way.

Get better ammo

/I use Federal Hydra-Shok in my every day carry .45
//I wouldn't recommend it in lower calibers though due to expansion issues
///In my .380 PPK I use Horandy Critical Defense


What kind of PPK do you have? I picked up an Interarms model in .380 ACP last week and I have heard the entire spectrum on the PPK's reliability (or supposed lack thereof) when it comes to hollowpoint ammunition.
 
2013-01-05 01:57:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: 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 si ...


Except for the fact that breaking into an occupied house DOES warrant somebody being shot.
 
2013-01-05 01:57:39 AM  

Flakeloaf: Fail in Human Form: "Holds up Ohio Revised Code, mainly the castle doctrine" - If a person breaks into your house there is an automatic assumption of death or grave bodily harm to the occupants and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self and family.

*case dismissed*

Gwinnett County is in Georgia.


Quoting myself because GA is also a castle doctrine state.

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.


Good shoot. Case dismissed. Moral jury still out.
 
2013-01-05 01:57:58 AM  

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary:

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.

"My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."

That's likely enough to get him acquitted of home invasion, because knowledge of or recklessness as to the presence of people inside the house is one of the elements of that offence. He's still guilty of B&E of course and that's already a pretty big deal. But he has to get arrested first for any of that to matter, and that brings us to the homeowner's duty of care to him. It's not big, but it's not nil either.

The occupants of the home can't be expected to divine exactly what it is he plans to do while inside, and they are certainly entitled to use such clues as local society and context would offer them to make an educated guess about what it is the person plans to do. If violent home-invasion robberies are common there (the article doesn't say), then maybe perceiving the threat of death would be more reasonable. If you live in a society where someone pounding on your door for a few minutes and then walking inside means he plans to murder everybody well then I genuinely feel sorry for you, not baiting, not trolling. If that really is the way of life where you are, fire away. Unless the homeowner can prove that, then their local use of force laws would apply. Again, if that's castle doctrine then great. In most places it's warn-then-act. "GTFO" and ...


We will just have to disagree then, as it is unlikely either of us will convince the other.
 
2013-01-05 01:58:45 AM  

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary:

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.

"My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."

That's likely enough to get him acquitted of home invasion, because knowledge of or recklessness as to the presence of people inside the house is one of the elements of that offence. He's still guilty of B&E of course and that's already a pretty big deal. But he has to get arrested first for any of that to matter, and that brings us to the homeowner's duty of care to him. It's not big, but it's not nil either.

The occupants of the home can't be expected to divine exactly what it is he plans to do while inside, and they are certainly entitled to use such clues as local society and context would offer them to make an educated guess about what it is the person plans to do. If violent home-invasion robberies are common there (the article doesn't say), then maybe perceiving the threat of death would be more reasonable. If you live in a society where someone pounding on your door for a few minutes and then walking inside means he plans to murder everybody well then I genuinely feel sorry for you, not baiting, not trolling. If that really is the way of life where you are, fire away. Unless the homeowner can prove that, then their local use of force laws would apply. Again, if that's castle doctrine then great. In most places it's warn-then-act. "GTFO" and ...


He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.
 
2013-01-05 01:58:51 AM  

hundreddollarman: Fail in Human Form: thorthor: 45 Cal full metal jackets are heading their way.

Get better ammo

/I use Federal Hydra-Shok in my every day carry .45
//I wouldn't recommend it in lower calibers though due to expansion issues
///In my .380 PPK I use Horandy Critical Defense

What kind of PPK do you have? I picked up an Interarms model in .380 ACP last week and I have heard the entire spectrum on the PPK's reliability (or supposed lack thereof) when it comes to hollowpoint ammunition.


I have a S&W Walther PPK/S, carried it for years without a problem

/I also have a Walther PP in .32 that I've never had an issue with
 
2013-01-05 01:59:27 AM  

iq_in_binary: 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.


If you get hit square in the face with a .380 Auto you are likely dropping after the first round.  Sounds like he got lucky, or she got excited.

She could have missed just as easily with a 9mm.
 
2013-01-05 01:59:36 AM  

Boojum2k:

His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.


His behavior was criminal. "Threatening" connotes intent to do personal harm. There is no evidence that's the case. The only evidence indicates B&E.

You would make a terrible attorney.
 
2013-01-05 01:59:44 AM  

Harry Knutz: Boojum2k: Breaking into someones home is a personal violation, the criminal doing so has abandoned the requirements of society, and should face the highest possible risks for doing so.

Is there a legal right to use deadly force against someone breaking into your home? In most jurisdictions, yes. But that's not the issue. We are talking about intent. The man's intent was labeled "threatening" without any sort of proof.


He tore down the door with a crowbar. That's pretty damn good indication of intent.
 
2013-01-05 01:59:55 AM  
Also I think it's funny that the law has to specify the lethal force be used against another person in response to a break-in.

www.screeninsults.com
 
2013-01-05 02:02:39 AM  
I have guns for self defense, but more importantly I have dogs who will quite loudly inform me if something is awry. The dogs seem an adequate deterrence.
 
2013-01-05 02:03:00 AM  

Flakeloaf: "My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."



You can spin like a shyster all ya want, what he did was break into a home with a mother and some kids with a crowbar and proceeded to ransack the place while they hid. There's no reason the mother should be expected to let him live after he's made it to the second floor after breaking in and uncovered her hiding children's hiding spot. Even a coup de grace should be legally acceptable in that case.

The homestead is scared. The burden of proof of goodwill is on the part of the one who enters. If you are not invited in and you are not bidden to enter by a higher legal authority, then you are outlaw. It is not a crime to kill an outlaw. If it is, then we should change the law.

This guy is stupid lucky. I don't know how he got up after 5 bullets to the head and neck, but he did. There's no moral reason he should be alive. He's simply lucky.
 
2013-01-05 02:03:51 AM  

iq_in_binary: He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.


Article doesn't say he tore the door down. He could've smashed a little window and turned the cylinder, or deformed the door frame and pushed the door open, or smashed the whole thing to bits like the koolaid man. I'm just going by what I know, which ain't much.

Anyway, people from different cultures are going to believe different things. The internet lets these people talk to each other to learn their similarities and differences, which is cool. The weird part is how we both feel sorry for the other's civilization.
 
2013-01-05 02:04:02 AM  

iq_in_binary: He tore down the door with a crowbar. That's pretty damn good indication of intent.


You're a mindreader! Call James Randi and collect your prize.

/Intent to break down a door with a crowbar, yes. Anything else is hearsay.
 
2013-01-05 02:04:13 AM  

Harry Knutz: Boojum2k:

His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.

His behavior was criminal. "Threatening" connotes intent to do personal harm. There is no evidence that's the case. The only evidence indicates B&E.

You would make a terrible attorney.


Likely better than you, you'd defend this guy before a jury by arguing that he was not threatening. They'd probably not have finished laughing before finding him guilty. He broke into her home, with a crowbar.
 
2013-01-05 02:05:20 AM  

Lsherm: iq_in_binary: 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.

If you get hit square in the face with a .380 Auto you are likely dropping after the first round.  Sounds like he got lucky, or she got excited.

She could have missed just as easily with a 9mm.


You would be quite surprised, actually. .380 ACP is about 130 ft/lbf less powerful than .38 Auto, as is .38 Spl. 330 ft/lbf is generally enough to shatter orbitals and punch through skulls, 200ft/lbf not so much. There's plenty of instances of light load rounds like .380 ACP and .38 Spl zipping right along under people's scalps and exiting off yonder without even cracking the skull, some of those the poor bastard didn't even realize he was shot until they started seeing blood running down their forehead.
 
2013-01-05 02:05:40 AM  

doglover: It is not a crime to kill an outlaw


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-05 02:10:09 AM  

Boojum2k: Likely better than you, you'd defend this guy before a jury by arguing that he was not threatening. They'd probably not have finished laughing before finding him guilty. He broke into her home, with a crowbar.


Depends on the charges against him. No defense against B&E in this case. Would plead No Contest. But any charge that begins with "Intent" and includes "bodily harm" I'm pretty sure I could get dismissed on the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HE INTENDED TO DO ANYTHING BUT ROB THE JOINT.
 
2013-01-05 02:10:29 AM  
I agree with one of the previous posters.

Someone knocking persistently on the door doesn't necessitate a call to the husband about what to do. The husband's response to tell them to hide and immediately call 911 also seems more than out of whack for what the woman thought was a solicitor.

Woman: "Honey, I think there's girl scouts at the door! I called you as soon as I could!"
Man: "Get a gun and hide with the kids, I'll call the cops."

Not only that, they don't report that the man stole anything, rather that he went through the house until he made it to the attic office and then opened the closet to find the woman and her kids hiding.

The reported facts just don't seem to explain the behavior of these individuals. Something else was going on here.
 
2013-01-05 02:10:30 AM  

Flakeloaf: doglover: It is not a crime to kill an outlaw

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x367]


You're telling me you wouldn't shoot that? A guy in a hockey mask with a cricket bat? I'd shoot that guy and that would be my defense: "He broke into my house and attacked me with a cricket bat."

There's no law against shooting people who break into your house an attack you. There's probably not even a law against shooting people who aren't in your home and attack you with a cricket bat in most places.
 
2013-01-05 02:10:35 AM  

Harry Knutz: iq_in_binary: He tore down the door with a crowbar. That's pretty damn good indication of intent.

You're a mindreader! Call James Randi and collect your prize.

/Intent to break down a door with a crowbar, yes. Anything else is hearsay.


B&E into an occupied home means he had little to no regard for the safety of the people inside the house. Plain and farking simple. That you can't see that is just evidence of your complete lack of observational skills or capability for critical thought.

Castle Doctrine is the law of the land where this happened, obviously the society had decided from previous experience that people entering occupied homes uninvited generally have ill intent towards the well being of the people inside. Are you seriously this incapable of recognizing or being aware of societal norms and expectations?
 
2013-01-05 02:11:56 AM  

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.


www.thegtsaga.net

What was that- IS SOMEBODY THERE?? ... must have been my imagination.

/never should have come here!
 
2013-01-05 02:12:36 AM  

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.


How 'bout this? fark him. Dude just got out of jail for battery and has six arrests in the last 4 years. In a perfect world he'd have died on the scene. I like the lesson that if you keep comiting crimes someone will shoot you in the face.

/liberal
//in favor of some type of gun control
///more in favor of pieces of shiat getting what they deserve
 
2013-01-05 02:13:37 AM  

Boojum2k: Harry Knutz: Boojum2k:

His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.

His behavior was criminal. "Threatening" connotes intent to do personal harm. There is no evidence that's the case. The only evidence indicates B&E.

You would make a terrible attorney.

Likely better than you, you'd defend this guy before a jury by arguing that he was not threatening. They'd probably not have finished laughing before finding him guilty. He broke into her home, with a crowbar.


"I needed the crowbar to force the door open. I carried it with me in case I found another door, and also because I didn't want to leave evidence behind or leave a good weapon lying around for the homeowner to bash in my skull with."
> "So you admit a crowbar can be used as a weapon."
>> "Objection: States the obvious. Anything that can be held in the hand can be a weapon."
> "The witness put that ball in play."
>>> "Overruled. Please answer the question."
"Yeah, I guess so. But I wasn't gonna hit anyone with it. I didn't even know anyone was inside, I checked to make sure. I just wanted to steal a buncha stuff."

IANAL and even I can find reasonable doubt here. Any defense lawyer who can find his way into a courtroom and manage to sit down on the correct side of the chair can make pretty short work of a home invasion accusation.
 
2013-01-05 02:14:29 AM  

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.


Did you miss the part about breaking into a private home?  That's a good enough reason to get shot.
 
2013-01-05 02:14:37 AM  

iq_in_binary: Are you seriously this incapable of recognizing or being aware of societal norms and expectations?


The law doesn't care about societal norms. The law is the law. Was the shooting justified under the law? Yes. Was the criminal's intent to commit bodily harm to the home's occupants? If you claim to know the man's intent, you're full of it.
 
2013-01-05 02:17:28 AM  

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.


It's not about the things he takes.  It's not about the value of the items he is taking.  It is all about the violation of a person's sanctity in their own home.  There would be no difference if he were taking a one dollar toy or a million dollar work of art.
 
Displayed 50 of 348 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report