Grandfather of burglar says it’s not ‘fair’ to defend home with an AR-15
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Grandfather of burglar says it’s not ‘fair’ to defend home with an AR-15

  1. #1

    Grandfather of burglar says it’s not ‘fair’ to defend home with an AR-15

    Obamas definition for foreign affairs was strategic patience, -IE- not doing a damned thing. Weakness is a provocation, strength is a deterrent.

    Grandfather of burglar says it’s not ‘fair’ to defend home with an AR-15; here’s my response
    .
    By: Sheriff David Clarke, Jr.
    .
    Recently, three criminals were shot and killed during a home invasion robbery and now the grandfather of one of the suspects is complaining that it wasn’t a “fair fight.”
    .
    Maxwell Cook, 19, Jacob Redfearn, 17, and Jaycob Woodruff, 16, broke into a home in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. The owners were not at home, but their 23-year-old son, Zachary Peters, was and he grabbed his AR-15 the second he heard the commotion. He defended his life and his parents’ property by shooting all three boys once in the chest. Police have said it is a clear-cut case of self defense.
    .
    However, Redfearns’s grandfather, Leroy Schumacher, disagrees with that conclusion:
    .
    “What these three boys did was stupid. They knew they could be punished for it but they did not deserve to die.
    .
    “Brass knuckles against an AR-15? Come on, who was afraid for their life? There’s got to be a limit to that law. I mean he shot all three of them. There was no need for that.”
    .
    He says it’s not fair? Fair is a place where they award blue ribbons to hogs and Holsteins.
    .
    If you are in my house un-invited as in a burglary, the owner (me) doesn’t have to look for “fair.” I have to look for my firearm… hopefully the one with the highest caliber is nearby.
    .
    This is the best deterrent. I don’t care what the perp comes in with.
    .
    Brass knuckle are for hand to hand combat. As a home owner I want rifle-to-burglar combat.
    .
    Read More:
    .
    Grandfather of burglar says it's not ?fair? to defend home with an AR-15; here's my response
    .
    My Thoughts:
    .
    It’s a shame these thugs chose to commit this crime and one was killed, but due to the dispersity of force, three against one, this person had every right to defend himself. Stupid actions have consequences.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. Gets three thugs off the street. We don't have to feed them, supply them with tv and exercise equipment as well as a college education. Oh, I know it wasn't their fault, their Mom or Dad didn't love them enough, they grew up in the wrong neighborhood or they got mixed up with the wrong crowd.


    Sent from my iPhone using USA Carry

  4. #3
    Cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it!

  5. #4
    Sorry, this grandfather thinks an AR-15 is very appropriate against multiple thugs that just broke into a home, and is a possible greeting that punks breaking into my home would receive.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  6. #5
    Anything less than a 105mm howitzer should be legal for home defense. Anything over that would be unnecessary. As for the grandfather saying "it wasn't a fair fight" in using an AR15, since when did defense of one's life and property have to come under the heading of fair fight? Crime is never fair.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldgrunt View Post
    Anything less than a 105mm howitzer should be legal for home defense. Anything over that would be unnecessary.
    What if you are defending your home against the government?

    "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - these words were written by men who had just witnessed and some participated in the violent overthrow of their previous government by force using arms equal to those of the government they had overthrown. Given that history, what do you think the authors meant by the word "Arms"? Given who wrote those words and the immediate history preceding writing it, the reasonable conclusion would be that the authors meant "Arms" to mean those required to preserve the free state by repelling whichever tyrannical government might be threatening the freedom of the state. Also notice the word "Arms" is capitalized. Why is that?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  8. Good parents teach their kids that there are real consequences to their choices. And some are irreversible. I am sure it is painful for Pappy and easy to grasp at straws.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    What if you are defending your home against the government?

    "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - these words were written by men who had just witnessed and some participated in the violent overthrow of their previous government by force using arms equal to those of the government they had overthrown. Given that history, what do you think the authors meant by the word "Arms"? Given who wrote those words and the immediate history preceding writing it, the reasonable conclusion would be that the authors meant "Arms" to mean those required to preserve the free state by repelling whichever tyrannical government might be threatening the freedom of the state. Also notice the word "Arms" is capitalized. Why is that?
    Seems like you might not understand what I said. After all, this was a home invasion by three kids who should have been doing anything other than trying to rob a home. Again, I said, "Anything less than a 105mm howitzer should be legal for home defense." I took that to mean from a 105 down to, and including, rocks. The OP mentioned the three being shot with an M-15, which, to me, is less than a 105mm, and perfectly suited to protecting yourself and home. Now, if I were defending my home from the entity you mention, I would like to have a 155mm howitzer or above. Have a weapon proportionate to the needs at hand.

  10. In what fantasy world, grandpa, is someone under attack by a 16, 17, and 19 year old with brass knuckles not in danger of serious injury or death? Do you know how many people are just plain beaten to death every year? Over twice as many as are shot to death, according to FBI stats. You need to wake up and smell the coffee, old man.

Tags for this Thread

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