Wildalaska
Moderator
So private deterrance is the answer? Death as the ultimate deterrance? How about making it state sanctioned then...execute all felons...is that the type of society we want?
WildthatneedsathreadtooAlaska ™
Armed Citizen: Teen Shot by Homeowner
- Thread starter verti89
- Start date
- Status
So private deterrance is the answer? Death as the ultimate deterrance? How about making it state sanctioned then...execute all felons...is that the type of society we want?
WildthatneedsathreadtooAlaska ™
spacemanspiff
New member
Sometimes I wonder if those who are most vocal about things like that, are all bark no bite.
Texas Rifleman
New member
In regards to WildAlaska -
No. But our own system has failed us. In Texas these are our rights. Maybe not elsewhere, but here they are. every situation is up to the individual. I'll be honest, if someone is stealing something I will confront them (with a concealed weapon they cannot see) in hopes they will stop and run because most of them will. But if they don't...well. In Houston we have a WAY worse crime problem than in Alaska. On Mason Rd. a white kid was shot several times at a red light as part of a gang initiation. This happens a lot and this happened not to long ago near my house. Ruthless. Good area too. These criminals have NO regard for human life. If I have to choose between them and me it will always be me. I also don't consider myself a paranoid person. If I had these views and was super paranoid I would scare myself!
No. But our own system has failed us. In Texas these are our rights. Maybe not elsewhere, but here they are. every situation is up to the individual. I'll be honest, if someone is stealing something I will confront them (with a concealed weapon they cannot see) in hopes they will stop and run because most of them will. But if they don't...well. In Houston we have a WAY worse crime problem than in Alaska. On Mason Rd. a white kid was shot several times at a red light as part of a gang initiation. This happens a lot and this happened not to long ago near my house. Ruthless. Good area too. These criminals have NO regard for human life. If I have to choose between them and me it will always be me. I also don't consider myself a paranoid person. If I had these views and was super paranoid I would scare myself!
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.
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 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.
Texas Rifleman
New member
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.
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
New member
Finally someone who makes sense and sees the reality of the situation! Congratulations on not being brainwashed sir.
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
New member
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.
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
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
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.
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
Moderator
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.OuTcAsT said:
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?
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.Donn_N said:
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.
Last edited:
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"
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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.
- Status