But wouldn't be more likely to result in death? The reason i said shoot them in the leg is because that would keep them stationery until the police came.
911 Tape: Man Kills Two Burglars
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
But wouldn't be more likely to result in death? The reason i said shoot them in the leg is because that would keep them stationery until the police came.
Yes, but when you shoot someone, your concern is preserving your own life, not theirs. So you shoot in the torso because it's the easiest shot and the most likely to bring them down.
A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463889/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463889/
um can i ask a question?
it may seem stupid but how do we even know if they were actually breaking into the nabors house?
I ask because i have had to break into my own house on occasion (i lost my car keys at the beach so had to get a lift home to get the spare and the house keys were locked in the car) so it could well be that they were there for an innocent purpose
it may seem stupid but how do we even know if they were actually breaking into the nabors house?
I ask because i have had to break into my own house on occasion (i lost my car keys at the beach so had to get a lift home to get the spare and the house keys were locked in the car) so it could well be that they were there for an innocent purpose
Some things might be more apparent than others
They were on their way out. And there does come a point when your neighbors should know a bit about you and who you expect to be around your house.
At least, that's how it is on this side of the Pacific.
Some people really want to shoot someone. And every once in a while, someone gives them an excuse.
Besides, it doesn't really matter. A jury, in the United States, is supposed to be of your peers. And in Texas, if you can prove that "the sumbitch had it comin'" without actually saying the words, a jury of your peers will send you on your way.
They were on their way out. And there does come a point when your neighbors should know a bit about you and who you expect to be around your house.
At least, that's how it is on this side of the Pacific.
Some people really want to shoot someone. And every once in a while, someone gives them an excuse.
Besides, it doesn't really matter. A jury, in the United States, is supposed to be of your peers. And in Texas, if you can prove that "the sumbitch had it comin'" without actually saying the words, a jury of your peers will send you on your way.
I wouldnt expect my nabors to know who my friends are. I would expect them to call the police if someone who wasnt normally around the house came around but i wouldnt want them SHOT. cop rocks up,
Cop: "sir is there a reason your at this house"
Guy: "yes officer, my friend asguard asked me to get this crowbar for him to do some work at my house"
Cop: "can you prove that"
Guy: "sure i can, hang on i will give him a ring"
*phone rings*
Me: "hey mate wheres that crowbar"
Guy: "cops want to make sure i wasnt robbing your house"
ect
There are ALOT of reasons someone could be going in and out of a house, the naborly thing is to call the cops and make sure, NOT SHOOT THEM.
what if it was her new BF\s?
Cop: "sir is there a reason your at this house"
Guy: "yes officer, my friend asguard asked me to get this crowbar for him to do some work at my house"
Cop: "can you prove that"
Guy: "sure i can, hang on i will give him a ring"
*phone rings*
Me: "hey mate wheres that crowbar"
Guy: "cops want to make sure i wasnt robbing your house"
ect
There are ALOT of reasons someone could be going in and out of a house, the naborly thing is to call the cops and make sure, NOT SHOOT THEM.
what if it was her new BF\s?
I'm glad the Grand Jury cleared him. It's nice to know that there is some sanity in the world, where you aren't punished for simply defending your own or your friend's property.
What a retard, he should go to jail for a long time. First of all he wasn't defending his life or anyone else's life, which is the only reason to kill someone. Secondly, they were coming out of the neighbor's house, away from any potential victim. Thirdly, he could not percieve any threat to anyone, only to their probably worthless crappy TV or whatever. He committed murder. Admittedly I have little sympathy for a criminal thief, but that doesn't make it OK to kill them.
Ryokan, a Zen master, lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening a thief visited the hut only to discover there was nothing in it to steal.
Ryokan returned and caught him. “You may have come a long way to visit me,” he told the prowler, “and you shoud not return emptyhanded. Please take my clothes as a gift.”
The thief was bewildered. He took the clothes and slunk away.
Ryokan sat naked, watching the moon. “Poor fellow, ” he mused, “I wish I could give him this beautiful moon.”
Ryokan returned and caught him. “You may have come a long way to visit me,” he told the prowler, “and you shoud not return emptyhanded. Please take my clothes as a gift.”
The thief was bewildered. He took the clothes and slunk away.
Ryokan sat naked, watching the moon. “Poor fellow, ” he mused, “I wish I could give him this beautiful moon.”
Shotgun with buckshot to the leg? Good way to nail the femoral artery without much effort.
i listened to this on the news last night, and he was eager to shoot them, he wanted to shoot, he didnt give them much of a chance to stop what they were doing (i know the chances of that happening is rare) but he was just so keen to kill someone, he wasnt getting more and more agitated he was getting himself pumped up to shoot them, it is not the citizens jobs to extract justice onto people.
he had a shinny gun and wanted to use the thing. He should go to jail!
he had a shinny gun and wanted to use the thing. He should go to jail!
So what if he wanted to shoot? So what if he was eager to shoot? All that is a moot point when these two criminals decided to practice their profession in this neighborhood.
Horn would have been charged with a crime if his actions had been criminal. A grand jury decided. A jury of people, not just one prosecutor deciding the matter.
it was criminal it was murder.
in my opinion that is.
This is what happens when you got a country who are obsessed with guns.
And this is what happens when you obsessively disarm the general law abiding population:
"This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html
then they need to deal with it accordingly, do away with guns and then the rate of accidental shootings will reduce aswell
Deal with it like this? (from same article):
"Meanwhile, much of rural Britain is without a police presence. And the statutes meant to protect the people have been vigorously enforced against them. Among the articles people have been convicted of carrying for self defence are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper."
anyone carrieing a weapon should be fined and persistant offenders should be giving prison time
A fork can be a weapon. Back to eating with your fingers I guess. Nothing but cold sausages on the menu.