Homeowner charged with attempted murder. - Page 8
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 130

Thread: Homeowner charged with attempted murder.

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    The news said that the invader was shot in the head. I'm guessing that that's what the home-owner was aiming at rather than that his aim was off. Isn't shooting someone in the head much more likely to kill than a COM shot?
    This was also 30ft away, at night, with a handgun. Getting a head shot was probably a lucky miss, or maybe the kid was behind the car and that's all he could see. Shooting "to kill" or "to wound" is a misnomer. If I have to shoot, I will shoot to stop the threat. I will then continue to shoot until there is no threat. If the BG is still standing but drops his gun and p[resents no further threat, I'm done. If I shoot the BG and he ends up on the ground and is still presenting a threat (reaching for something or presenting a weapon) I'm still shooting. If at some point the unfortunate bastard passes away, too bad. When these liberals start talking about "shooting to wound" they are spouting TV crap about "you should have just shot him in the leg."

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    I beg to differ with you on reading too much into what the instructor said. He was quite unequivocal in saying that once the perp is on the ground and not threatening us with further bodily harm, we were to stop shooting.
    Yes. Exactly. Stop there. On the ground means nothing. If they have a gun they can shoot you from the ground. NOT THREATENING is the key. The other key is the PERCEIVED threat. Who perceives it? You. What do you consider a threat? That is the question. For me if a kid in the exact same situation, in my fenced yard (not fenced community, MY YARD) doesn't run away when the dog barks, then doesn't run away when I show up and draw a gun, but decides to reach for some unseen object (I don't know or care what it is) I perceive that as a threat. If I don't, and he does pull a gun, we now have an even fight. I don't want that. The law doesn't require that. If you want to wait and make sure, you better hope you're a better shot than he is. Wanna bet your life on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    I guess I'm trying to agree with bluestringers that shooting an unarmed person (didn't know he was unarmed until after the fact) for a movement into his pocket (see above) does present difficulties in front of a jury, (it's all about being able to articulate your state of mind at the time of the event) absent corroborating witnesses, even if the guy is on my gated property.

    It's a little difficult to imagine living in a gated community though (Trayvon entered a "gated community, this douchebag was in the guys fenced in back yard, look at the pic in the article) ...One of my homes is on 20 acres of woods with nothing more than about 1-1/2 feet of stone "wall" around it and the other is at the end of a 500-ft driveway and pretty much surrounded pretty densely by trees, vines, shrubs and other impediments to approach. Fortunately, my poverty is great protection. I don't have any stuff that any self-respecting thief would want. It's tough to make a getaway dragging a DR Field and Brush Mower.

    George
    */:-{)=
    I think the DR Mower would be cool, so if I stop by that's what I'm stealing. I think I could probably clear a heck of a getaway path with it!
    Chief

  2.   
  3. #72
    After the Trayvon incident and now this one and no doubt more to come, wouldn't you think the parents of these kids would tell them to stop running around like thugs, expecting to be treated as gentlemen, when their pants are on the floor and they are wearing hoodies to cover their faces?
    The logical thing here is for them to stop doing stupid things so they don't get shot. Because if they are innocent, that is what everyone wants.

    IMO, there is NO justifiable excuse to be on someone's property in the middle of the night. Most of the time, not in daylight either.

    With that said,, I can't think of a reason I would shoot at someone standing in my yard. But I've been reading about all of the black-on-white violence lately so maybe it the owner's fear was great enough, in his mind, to justify.

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by devo-j View Post
    After the Trayvon incident and now this one and no doubt more to come, wouldn't you think the parents of these kids would tell them to stop running around like thugs, expecting to be treated as gentlemen, when their pants are on the floor and they are wearing hoodies to cover their faces?
    The logical thing here is for them to stop doing stupid things so they don't get shot. Because if they are innocent, that is what everyone wants.

    IMO, there is NO justifiable excuse to be on someone's property in the middle of the night. Most of the time, not in daylight either. .
    OK, for this one ^^^^^ What he said, and twice on Sunday!

    Quote Originally Posted by devo-j View Post
    With that said,, I can't think of a reason I would shoot at someone standing in my yard. But I've been reading about all of the black-on-white violence lately so maybe it the owner's fear was great enough, in his mind, to justify.
    For this part, New Orleans yards (in the city) are small, like NYC small. The houses are side by side, so they are skinny too. Picture your tall, skinny house one driveway width away from the neighbor. You park your car in this skinny (yet possibly long) yard because of the crime. You may have some yard behind your house that is the width of both the driveway and the house combined, but it may not be that big. Your dog is barking and you go out the front door to see why. You walk to the driveway gate and see someone back by your car (at 2am). Instead of running when the dog starts barking, or when he hears you come outside, or when he sees you standing there at the gate (inside or outside wasn't mentioned) he decides to reach for something on his body. I am sorry, but I would not hesitate to shoot. As I have said before I would preface that by giving a verbal command like "Lemme see your hands". We don't know that the homeowner did this, but we don't know that he didn't either. Non-compliance could result in lead poisoning.
    Chief

  5. Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    I think the DR Mower would be cool, so if I stop by that's what I'm stealing. I think I could probably clear a heck of a getaway path with it!
    Depending on which end of the 500 ft. driveway the DR Mower is stored, you MAY not have to clear a getaway path at all!

  6. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post

    Firefighterchen didn't say a word about shooting to kill. I'll guarantee you that he knows the difference between willfully trying to kill a threatening subject and stopping the threat. All he said is that you never shoot to wound, and he's right. Both premises are too specific to be either prudent or legal. You shoot to stop the threat, just like your instructor said. If the threatening subject gets wounded, that's fine. If he gets killed, that's fine too according to the law, as long as the perceived threat and use of deadly force was justified. Shoot center-mass and/or central nervous system with your intent being to stop the threat. Don't shoot the leg or arm thinking that you'll wound him and that will be sufficient to stop the threat. Without trying to speak for Firefighterchen, I'm pretty sure that's all he was saying.
    The news said that the invader was shot in the head. I'm guessing that that's what the home-owner was aiming at rather than that his aim was off.
    That's exactly right - you're guessing what the homeowner was aiming for. At night from a good distance away, there's no telling what he was aiming at.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    Isn't shooting someone in the head much more likely to kill than a COM shot?
    Shooting someone in the heart is much more likely to kill them than shooting through the meat just below the clavicle too, but either would be considered a COM hit. Where would an errant round that stayed on the center-line, but missed high, actually hit? If you said the head, you're a winner.

    Either way, it's intent that matters. You can stop the threat with a COM shot or a CNS (which includes the head) head shot. Niether one makes you a wanton killer. You just defended yourself efficiently and accurately, which is more than many shooters can say in a high stress, high adrenaline situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    You're reading much more into what FFC said than is fair.
    I beg to differ with you on reading too much into what the instructor said.
    "FFC" = Firefighterchen. You were (and still are) reading much more into what Firefighterchen said than is fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    He was quite unequivocal in saying that once the perp is on the ground and not threatening us with further bodily harm, we were to stop shooting.
    Something that FFC (Firefighterchen) neither said he wouldn't do, nor, I'm reasonably sure, would he disagree with your instructor on that score.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    Perhaps keep the BG covered until LE arrives....
    Ya think?

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    ....but not to continue shooting until all movement stops.
    And who exactly said anything contradicting this premise again? Nobody that I saw. All FFC said was that you never shoot to wound, you only shoot to stop the threat, and he was 100% correct. You don't shoot to kill, and you don't shoot to wound, you only shoot to stop the threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    It is possible to writhe in pain or try to reposition your body to get off a particularly painful open wound without threatening anyone.
    If you can tell the difference, and the subject is indeed writhing in pain rather than trying to lure you into a false sense of security that you have succeeded in stopping the threat, then maybe you will take the opportunity to administer first aid? You do know first aid, don't you? I know for a fact that FFC has forgotten more about first aid than most of us will ever know. That said, I would not hold it against him if he kept a safe distance from the person he just had to shoot because they were trying to victimize him with potentially deadly force, and if any of the subject's movements appeared threatening, I wouldn't hold it against him if he opened fire again.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    I do appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments. Frequently when I get into discussions (about politics or history mostly) folks get all bent out of shape when they can't discourse dispassionately about a topic.

    George
    */:-{)=
    Well, I don't know why anyone should be "dispassionate" about the prospect of saving their own life at the possible expense of another's, but you do have the right to expect a fair degree of manners and decorum. That's a two-way street though, and reading things into what others say when they didn't even come close to implying what you read into it is lacking in form too. But it takes awhile to fit in anywhere that you don't yet know the general tone of the group. Keep trying - you'll get there.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    I guess I'm trying to agree with bluestringers that shooting an unarmed person for a movement into his pocket does present difficulties in front of a jury, absent corroborating witnesses, even if the guy is on my gated property.

    It's a little difficult to imagine living in a gated community though...One of my homes is on 20 acres of woods with nothing more than about 1-1/2 feet of stone "wall" around it and the other is at the end of a 500-ft driveway and pretty much surrounded pretty densely by trees, vines, shrubs and other impediments to approach. Fortunately, my poverty is great protection. I don't have any stuff that any self-respecting thief would want. It's tough to make a getaway dragging a DR Field and Brush Mower.

    George
    */:-{)=
    No, I just said that I agreed with bluestringers that it would present problems when it comes to court time and there are no witnesses to corroborate your explanation of why you shot an unarmed teenager.

  8. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    No, I just said that I agreed with bluestringers that it would present problems when it comes to court time and there are no witnesses to corroborate your explanation of why you shot an unarmed teenager.
    A lot of people said that about the TM vs GZ case, which turned out to be a media circus show, and they even had witnesses.

    The only reason this case will have problems for the home owner is because we are all guilty until proven innocent.
    “One of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  9. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by gmforsythe View Post
    No, I just said that I agreed with bluestringers that it would present problems when it comes to court time and there are no witnesses to corroborate your explanation of why you shot an unarmed teenager.
    Didn't present any problems for Zimmerman. No witnesses - still not guilty.
    Chief

  10. #79
    No wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket. So many of the replies want to give the bad guy the advantage, or excuse criminal behavior. Trespassing might be a misdemeanor, I think it should be a felony. If I go on some ones property, uninvited, at 2:00AM, I would hope they would shoot me. First the gun grabbers want to take away our guns, so we can not protect ourselves, then go hide in a corner and hope nothing bad will happen to us, while we wait for LEO (could take almost 1 hour if we lived in Detroit). Get real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Even though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no Evil, for YOU are with me; Remington 44 Mag:

  11. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    I shoot to stop, 1 or more bullets when you stop and stop being a threat I stop.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast