• Idaho teen shoots burglar during home invasion, gunfight
    370 replies, posted
[QUOTE=_Axel;51310808] Then just get behind the nearest cover and just aim at the door.[/QUOTE] My room also has the front door to my house. There is nowhere to take cover from a gun.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51310842]My room also has the front door to my house. There is nowhere to take cover from a gun.[/QUOTE] Yeah I already mentioned it doesn't work in single-room apartments.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51310871]Yeah I already mentioned it doesn't work in single-room apartments.[/QUOTE] so your method only works in big houses with not so determined attackers. Thats a pretty shitty method for dealing with an intruder.
This is why I have a hearty laugh whenever someone on FP goes "but burglars don't want to hurt you! It's much safer to just leave them alone, they don't have any motive to kill you!"
[QUOTE=RB33;51310643]Whatever terrible thing he might do to your property is not worth risking your life for.[/QUOTE] uhhhh If some intruder breaks into a guys house with a gun, and the guy has a family is that guy really going to take the chance to see if the intruder ignores them? Especially considering smaller homes where you may not be able to get to your kids if you have to cross to the other parts of the house to get to them and risk running into the intruder? What if little Billy hears some weird sounds like the teen in the OP and decides to investigate and gets blasted for it because the intruder was spooked?
[B]LONG ASS POST THAT'S MOSTLY COMPILED FROM OTHER PLACES [/B] I hate it when these kinds of threads happen because it's always the same shit, with the same falsely represented statistics and the same false equivalences and the same appeal to emotion garbage. Here are some cursory statistics and arguments because I'm not willing to spend [I]too[/I] much time delving deep into this. Let's start with the argument that other countries are generally better/worse: [QUOTE=EcksDee;51309851]china has 1200x the population and it has less gun deaths, less incarceration and better educational standards than the US (forgetting for the moment that their system is incredibly extreme when it comes to schooling)[/QUOTE] This is a false equivalence (as is the comparison to Estonia) because no shit a country with limited civilian access to firearms is gonna have far less incidents. If you want a more realistic comparison, let's look at some countries like Switzerland that have high concentrations of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country"]firearms per capita[/URL]: [img_thumb]http://haruha.ru/k8jmu[/img_thumb] Wow look at that, Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway are in the top 10. As for [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate"]homicides with firearms[/URL]: [img_thumb]http://haruha.ru/59ur8[/img_thumb] Look how far down Switzerland is, and how some of the countries with widespread ownership don't show up and others are at the top with low overall ownership. What this demonstrates is what most research has been struggling with for years, [I]that comparing countries based on such a broad generalization as ownership vs homicides is difficult since making proper equivalences is next to impossible, especially considering how gun culture varies so much between different peoples and the numerous confounding factors.[/I] You could just as easily make an argument go either way, since there isn't necessarily correlation and causation. [B]It's more productive to look at more specific comparisons when using statistics from other places.[/B] So what about strictly speaking in the US? First off, the 33k statistic that comes from the [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm"]CDC[/URL]: it's represented in an entirely false manner. So as has been pointed out, out of 33,599 deaths, 21,334 odd deaths are suicides, which can be discounted since they're not exactly relevant for the purpose of this discussion, and there's a wide variety of separate arguments to be made as to why they shouldn't be considered at all, but that's getting a bit too far ahead of ourselves. So this leaves 11k or so deaths under consideration. But according to the [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]FBI[/URL], (who's crime statistics are generally very accurate) there were 8,124 murders with all types of firearms. So the 2-3k or so unaccounted for deaths are derived from a combination of genuine accidents, people being idiots, and justifiable homicides (which this case would fall under), in addition to undetermined circumstances. According to the CDC document above, unintended deaths occur at a rate of .2 per 100,000 residents. This is basically irrelevant, since the 600 or so accidental deaths a year due to firearms pale in comparison to the 33,736 motor vehicle deaths. So unless you want to argue that people shouldn't be able to own cars because of how many people die from car accidents, its a moot point. If you want to lower accidents, you accomplish this by education (for instance in schools) in order to breed familiarity and to dispel baseless fears, something which the [URL="https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org"]NRA already tries to do[/URL]. Of course, the fact of the matter is that some people are just stupid or that accidents can and will happen regardless, and so that number will never be 0. But back to the 8,124 deaths. If you want to argue that scary assault rifles and the like shouldn't be allowed for civilian ownership, FBI stats state that a grand total of 248 deaths from from strictly rifles. Rifles, of course, could be anything from the media darling AR-15 to your average surplus SKS or Mosin. Compare that to 1,567 stabbings, 435 blunt objects, and [I]660 with their fists[/I], and there really isn't an argument. If someone wants someone dead, they'll find a way. On a side note, the AWB of '94 was seen as [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/"]ineffective[/URL], with questionable results at best, so a further evidence as to why scary black guns aren't an issue. If you want to argue that 8,124 is still a lot, let's not forget that this is does NOT differentiate between legal and illegal ownership, but simply the method. There have been numerous studies over the years from numerous sources, but a quick and dirty google search relays a [URL="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/"]wide[/URL] [URL="http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/"]variety[/URL] of [URL="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF"]claims[/URL]. Let's focus on the Poltifact article and go for the higher end of 10% of firearms used being fully legally acquired. So just over 800 deaths by legally acquired firearms of ALL types. That's 0.00025399811 percent of the 318.9 million Americans, 0.03084048312 percent of all deaths that year. So compare that to the extensive list of other deaths found in that CDC study above. So with the thousands of illegal gun owners that are already breaking the law, tougher regulations won't solve anything but to hamper law-abiding, respectable owners. Besides, solving the issue of what remains in terms of legal ownership would have to include enforcing things like stop and frisk and the like for catching criminals with legal guns, and straight up minority report tier shit for people who can't be predicted. What about mass shootings? Mass shootings are difficult to count due to the variety of ways to define them. As stated in this [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/mass-shooting-definition/"]WP article[/URL], it varies significantly depending on what you might consider a mass shooting. But let's go with an [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/"]average of 4 deaths.[/URL] 874 over the past 50 or so years. Again, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and a result of numerous factors, including but not limited to mental health. It's less about the guns and more about the people involved. Additionally, if you think about how many gun interactions occur on a daily basis WITHOUT incident, the probability of there being anything drops even more so. If you're still hell-bent on taking away people's guns based on some arbitrary moral objective, then sure, go ahead just ban guns regardless. [URL="http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/"]Look how well it turned out in some other places.[/URL] Country-wide: [img_thumb]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2WhhLo/UNZr8agpVqI/AAAAAAAAFH4/f6rrTVN7q6I/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/figure21_tcm77-352428.png[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/UK-Firearm-Homicide-Rate.png[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Ireland-Jamaica-2.jpeg[/img_thumb] Cities in the US: [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CSE3YbYoc_M/UNMlQ6jG9fI/AAAAAAAAE9Q/xug8Ho9outI/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-12-20+at++Thursday,+December+20,+9.47+AM.png[/img] [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Uy7V3Zl2MZ4/UNMlfuib0EI/AAAAAAAAE9Y/KReJQnzBvkw/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-12-20+at++Thursday,+December+20,+9.49+AM.png[/img] You could also note that the overall homicide rate for the [URL="https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/"]US[/URL] plateaued in the mid 20th century and is on a steady decline over the past few decades. [img]https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Murder-Rate-Chart.png[/img] Gun buybacks are also notorious for being [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/"]ineffective[/URL], and do less to actually reduce guns that would be used in crime. They're also a great way for idiots to get rid of [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/woman-turns-in-valuable-wwii-gun-at-police-station-weapon-buy-back/"]historical artifacts[/URL] and opportunists to take [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/29/minnesota-gun-buyback-program-dud-some-legal-owners-say.html"]advantage[/URL] of them. I'm not even going to get into the fact that [URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-13/farmers-copying-guns-at-home-make-philippines-deadlier-than-u-s-"]making guns illegally[/URL] is a total possibility. Thus, banning guns won't even work. But really, you could just make a pretentious moral argument like in this flowchart: [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/9w2XwTM.jpg[/img_thumb] In summary, the gun "epidemic" is entirely overblown. The costs of gun violence are minute in comparison to something like [URL="http://www.healthycommunitieshealthyfuture.org/learn-the-facts/economic-costs-of-obesity/"]obesity[/URL], and I've yet to see a push towards making being a fatass illegal. You can argue all you want about how a bunch of fudds shouldn't have access to boomsticks, and that it's dangerous for children (even though [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html"]swimming pools[/URL] are more dangerous), and how you don't trust anyone to have firearms. These basic stats show that arguments for gun control have less to do with numbers and more to do with emotion. Americans have had the right to bare arms for centuries; the Bill of Rights existed to define a list of God-given (that is, universal and essential) rights, and the founders of the nation believed in their words. It is easy to give up a right you have never used or care for, but it is no less just to limit freedom of speech than it is to limit our right for self-defense. For those who are unfamiliar with firearms or firearm culture, it is difficult to understand our obsession with guns. Gun owners come in all shapes and sizes, and for many it is a hobby and a passion, with thousands in time and money invested. That's why the unfounded push to ban firearms by those who fail to understand the opposing perspective is often met with such fervor. I, as do other law-abiding gun owners, have no intention of using my weapons with ill intent, and never will, and thus the insistence that all of us surrender our interests due to the actions of a few is tiring. I could get into way more depth about suicides, the justification for concealed carry, why banning guns based on cosmetics is stupid, why the ATF is such a stupid organization, and so on and so forth, but I'd rather leave it here for now. tl;dr people have the right to defend themselves as it is impossible to judge the character of the intruder and [B]SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED[/B]
You know what's worse than an american with no empathy for armed robbers? An european who paints the robber as a pure victim and the homeowner checking if the guy is still in the house and getting shot at as a bloodthirsty hick. You know what's more materialistic than someone not wanting all their hard work getting stolen by some dick? A dick who woke up and thought to himself, i'm gonna go steal some expensive stuff and try to gun down innocent people if they block my escape. If europeans really hate the idea of self defence maybe you guys should kick out the US military and let russia steamroll you already. If guns are so evil and exist only to kill kids and "innocent" robbers then why does the estonian/israeli/whateverstan armed forces insist on giving soldiers guns lol
Ideally every human being is rational and logical. No one would be physically hurt because there is no reason for it, and no one would steal because there would be ways to make it through life without resorting to crime. There would be no need to use drugs and there would be no need to steal things to afford them. Life is not ideal, and human beings are not always rational and logical, especially if drugs or mental illness is involved. Let's look at a play by play here and look at what choices each individual had in this scenario. Man and son hear strange noise in house. They could have immediately assumed there was a violent intruder in the house and stayed away while calling the cops, but they are not clairvoyant and need more information. They could call the cops and there could be a racoon in the house, and calling the cops for no reason has consequences. So, they decide to investigate. They find the door kicked in. The father/son likely assumed that someone at some point broke into the house and was in that room at some point. There could be someone there, he could have long left. Either way they need to find out. They could call the cops at this point, and they might have, but they're not going to wait to find out if there is a violent criminal in their house, especially if other family are inside, and they need to investigate. The burglar's intentions are not known. Some people might think all he was there for was to steal valuables and leave peacefully. But we don't know. He could have been planning to rape someone in the house. He could have been waiting to murder someone when they came home. He could be strung out of his mind looking to slay a dragon on PCP. After the incident, evidence shows he was rummaging through several areas of the house and did not know the homeowners, so he was most likely there for valuables and not there to harm them. The homeowners did not have that info at the time of the incident. Anyway, he brought a gun. When you have a gun, you intend to use it if the need arises. Whether you intend to protect yourself, hurt someone intentionally, or as a means of deterrence, that gun immediately escalates a simple burglary into a potential murder/s. Because anyone else does not know what you plan to do with that gun, they have to assume the worst to protect their lives. Otherwise if they assume you are a pacifist that burglar could take advantage and kill you and your family. When the father/son walked into the room the burglar immediately opened fire. He most likely didn't even know if they were armed or not from that quick firing. Either way, he has just attempted to take someone's life. He does not value the homeowner's lives and we still have no confirmation what his intentions are. He might have fired out of fear of getting shot, he might have wanted there to be no witnesses so he could get away scot-free, he might have wanted to kill these particular people because of a personal vendetta, he might have wanted to succeed in a rape and kill any potential resistance. As the home owner, you only can go on the information that he is a threat, intending to kill you. You have to neutralize that threat in case they have malevolent intentions beyond stealing material things. The police do not teleport, they have long response times in America because we are a very big country and our police are spread very thin and often underfunded and understaffed. In this situation, there is no one to help you. You have no guarantee that if given the opportunity this man who just tried to kill you would want to flee. After all, no sane man robs a house and fires at an innocent person, so this burglar isn't likely to be a logical rational person. Even if via game theory the smartest safest thing for the robber would be to flee, we have no confirmation that this robber understands that. If he's on the second floor of a house, he literally cannot flee without sustaining injury. He is cornered, but not trapped. The door is broken, he can potentially leave the room and kill the homeowners as they attempt to call the police and don't keep an eye on him. The burglar might have prior offenses and getting caught would mean an incredibly long jail sentence, and they might rather die than go back to jail. The rational thing to do as a home owner is to force a surrender so that the police can arrive, and to do make a person who is actively firing at you to stop is to wound them, secure their firearm, and hold them/tie them up/keep the gun on them. The only way this incident could have been avoided is if the burglar did not rob the house. The burglar is entirely responsible for his abdomen being shot. The home owners did nothing wrong, in fact, they did everything logically sound. There is no way you can argue a different outcome without being a mind reader or a mystic. Statistics don't mean shit, because those are trends of a whole population rather than an individual, so just because a large amount of robbers don't intend to hurt anyone doesn't mean the robber in your house is the same.
[QUOTE=Wazbat;51309115]Do robbers really harm the people though? Most with sense just know that getting caught for robbery is a lot lighter than murder or rape. Rare cases exist where you get fucking nutjobs but there not that common. I guess I'm just used to a normal police response time being a matter of minutes[/QUOTE] Some don't care. They flat out don't care. Getting caught by the police isn't something they want for any crime, big or small. They're career criminals for the most part anyway, to some of them murder's nothing
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;51309386]The good news is that burglar is likely going to be shitting and pissing into a bag the rest of his life, considering the shotgun was loaded with either birdshot or 00 buck, his intestines are likely ripped to shreds. Taking into account he shot first, he's going to get attempted murder charges, and good fucking luck suing the family you tried to kill after you broke into their home. Since the son only shot once, and didn't fire again once the intruder had been neutralized and was no longer a threat, it's safe to say no civil court would ever rule in favor of the home invader if he or his family decided to file a lawsuit against them.[/QUOTE] Yeah but you can cripple a person with lawyer costs. Not that some randy burgler would have enough money to lay siege through stalling in court, but it isn't so cut and dry sometimes
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51310883]so your method only works in big houses with not so determined attackers. Thats a pretty shitty method for dealing with an intruder.[/QUOTE] More than one room is a big house now? Also yeah robbers are not determined attackers, they're not fucking assassins, they just want to steal your shit. How is that a fucking shitty method when the one you propose is storming into the living room like a retard without even knowing where the intruder is and running the risk of him hearing you coming? Staying in one room simply increase your chances of survival, which is the point of owning a weapon in the first place. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;51309489][B]21,175[/B] suicides (X amount of which [B]wouldn't have happened without a gun[/B], as is documented).[/QUOTE] Don't be bloody stupid. If someone's at the point of killing themselves, the facility of using a firearm to do so or lack thereof won't factor in to most cases. The mentality and what factors into it are what cause suicide, not the method.
i can't take "the robber is carrying a gun to protect himself because the homeowner likely has a gun" and [b][i]especially[/i][/b] "the robber only shot at the homeowners because they were cornered" in addition to "the homeowners should have just fled/hid when they saw someone had broken into their home" as anything besides victim blaming
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51311894]i can't take "the robber is carrying a gun to protect himself because the homeowner likely has a gun" as anything besides victim blaming[/QUOTE] How's that victim blaming though? It doesn't legitimize shooting at the homeowners in any way, an explanation is not the same thing as a justification.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51311831]More than one room is a big house now? Also yeah robbers are not determined attackers, they're not fucking assassins, they just want to steal your shit. How is that a fucking shitty method when the one you propose is storming into the living room like a retard without even knowing where the intruder is and running the risk of him hearing you coming? Staying in one room simply increase your chances of survival, which is the point of owning a weapon in the first place. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.[/QUOTE] Point to where I advocated just running in. [editline]5th November 2016[/editline] Also how do you even know if the dude who broke into your house is just there to rob you. None of us are mind readers lol
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51311919]Point to where I advocated just running in.[/QUOTE] You're saying staying in the same room and aiming at the door is a "shitty method" so what else am I supposed to deduce from that? [QUOTE]Also how do you even know if the dude who broke into your house is just there to rob you. None of us are mind readers lol[/QUOTE] That doesn't fucking matter because if he is aggressive you are in an advantageous position to neutralize him.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51311831]More than one room is a big house now? Also yeah robbers are not determined attackers, they're not fucking assassins, they just want to steal your shit. How is that a fucking shitty method when the one you propose is storming into the living room like a retard without even knowing where the intruder is and running the risk of him hearing you coming? Staying in one room simply increase your chances of survival, which is the point of owning a weapon in the first place. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.[/QUOTE] [sp]Robbery isn't the correct term, as it implies direct confrontation being part of the process to acquire possessions whereas theft is the catch-all for "stealing shit" in general, typically when the owner is not present or otherwise aware and intervening in the process.[/sp] Yes, a robber/thief, by the cut-and-dry definition do just want to steal shit. However, that may not be their only intention and those possible other intentions cannot be known unless/until committed or admitted. Go read SleepyAl's post at the top of this page.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51311946][sp]Robbery isn't the correct term, as it implies direct confrontation being part of the process to acquire possessions whereas theft is the catch-all for "stealing shit" in general, typically when the owner is not present or otherwise aware and intervening in the process.[/sp] Yes, a robber/thief, by the cut-and-dry definition do just want to steal shit. However, that may not be their only intention and those possible other intentions cannot be known unless/until committed or admitted. Go read SleepyAl's post at the top of this page.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the head's up but I already know that (well except the distinction between robber and thief, I guess I'll be more precise next time). My point is if his intention is just to steal stuff there's a chance he'll get out without investigating every room in the house, so staying in one room decreases the likelihood of facing him and thus risk dying.
Oh, also all you people on about calling the police instead: What's to stop 1: the burglar shooting at and possibly killing the police and/or 2: the burglar being shot by police? A person being armed massively complicates the process of capturing them [editline]5th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;51311955]Thanks for the head's up but I already know that (well except the distinction between robber and thief, I guess I'll be more precise next time). My point is if his intention is just to steal stuff there's a chance he'll get out without investigating every room in the house, so staying in one room decreases the likelihood of facing him and thus risk dying.[/QUOTE] Again, that's all well and good if the intention is known. But it wasn't and won't be in any similar scenario until they're already in whatever act they intend to commit. You can make a guess, but guesses are a big risk when there's potential confrontation involved. Retreating, hiding, confronting and engaging are all gambles. The people in this case went with the one they were most confident in, and it ended in their favour.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51311957]Again, that's all well and good if the intention is known. But it wasn't and won't be in any similar scenario until they're already in whatever act they intend to commit.[/QUOTE] You don't need to know the intention of the intruder to take a stance that's most adapted to every possibility though.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;51309611]Obviously it's none of my business lmao? Sorta kinda voicing your opinion, discussing and spreading news is the point of a forum. The people who accidentally shoot their feet off or kill a family member also 'feel' like they need something to defend themselves with. If my country had a right to bear arms as easy as and a gun problem as big as America's, then you're damn right I'd give up that right. [b]I don't trust my fellow Estonian with guns,[/b] and Estonia is on average better educated than America, so that's saying something.[/QUOTE] Yeah.... [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/3gifsh/estonian_gun_laws/[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/world/europe/spooked-by-russia-tiny-estonia-trains-a-nation-of-insurgents.html?_r=0[/url] (EDL is a militia) [url]https://www.politsei.ee/en/teenused/weapons-permit/[/url] I guess you are unaware you have gun owners in your country? [quote]Requirements Weapons may be acquired by citizens of the Republic of Estonia or by aliens who hold a valid Estonian residence permit or who are residing in Estonia based on the right of residence. Weapons may be acquired since 18 years of age, by some types of weapons as of 21 years of age. Natural persons are permitted to acquire, hold and possess weapons for hunting, self-defence and protection of property, dealing with sports, professional activities and collection. [/quote] Using a gun for self-defense and protection of property are apparently legal reason to get a gun in Estonia.
Good on them. Justified 100%. They had the intent to kill with that weapon, and the owner of the house protected his property and family's life. Well done, I say! Although next time I'd suggest him popping off a couple more shots.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51311968]You don't need to know the intention of the intruder to take a stance that's most adapted to every possibility though.[/QUOTE] So if their intention was to seek and kill the house's occupants in addition to stealing their shit, do you think hiding would've gone well for them? You're also implying that meeting the potential threat with lethal force is not also an equally adaptable approach. This is false. You can argue the morality of it all day long, but in the event you go with what you think will resolve the situation with the least amount of risk to one's self.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51311976]So if their intention was to seek and kill the house's occupants in addition to stealing their shit, do you think hiding would've gone well for them?[/QUOTE] Hiding in a room and aiming at the door in case he comes in? Yes.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51311978]Hiding in a room and aiming at the door in case he comes in? Yes.[/QUOTE] And now you're making assumptions about the situation, which again is a bad idea when lethal weapons and/or intent are involved. Applied to this case, this presents a number of questions that we will never have the answer to, many of which the residents didn't in the situation either. Is there an easily defensible room or location within the property? Would they be able to first access their firearm and then get to this room without encountering the burglar on the way? Would the burglar have been able to work out the residents' plan and engage them from an unexpected direction, or even through the door/wall? Was he armed with anything beyond a handgun? They had the armed burglar boxed in either way and knew his positon; rather than depriving themselves of situational awareness as well as the aforementioned advantages and retreating to a corner and gamble on the burglar's intentions, they neutralised any potential threat he posed by immediately meeting him with force rather than waiting to find out the answers to those questions. My question to you is how is this [I]worse[/I] than your proposed solution, which could've potentially compromised the likelihood of them coming out unscathed to a further degree?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51311978]Hiding in a room and aiming at the door in case he comes in? Yes.[/QUOTE] We can talk about hypotheticals until the cows come home, because not everybody's going to simply stick to a given set of guidelines when, you know, somebody broke into their house with the intention to steal their shit, and if necessary, murder the witnesses to avoid getting fingered. The robber is responsible for getting his ass shot because he took his chances by trying to rob the house, period. A homeowner should also be responsible for defending himself and his property if he chooses to, because not everybody's going to just like that let a robber get away with their hard earned stuff, and robberies have consequences beyond the loss of money or goods. You can't always expect the police to be around or even nearby to answer a 911 call, and anything can happen between making this call and the responding officers turning up. Oh, and what happens, suppose the officers show up, and one or two of them get slain by the robber? That massively complicates an already existing shitshow. I'm all for allowing people to take their own choices when it comes to protecting their homes, their property, and their lives. You don't gamble on the home invader's good intentions when it comes to a break in. If they want to take their chances by giving the home invader free rein to take their possessions and leave without confronting him, that's just one choice among many, and you can't uphold this as being the right choice or the only moral choice a homeowner should take when it comes to a home invasion. This also applies if the homeowner decides to investigate the situation and confront whoever broke into his house. There are literally too many variables involved for any concrete judgment to be made, especially not via armchair analysis from anybody in this situation, and there is no accounting for likelihood as much as blind chance.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51312006]And now you're making assumptions about the situation, which again is a bad idea when lethal weapons and/or intent are involved. Applied to this case, this presents a number of questions that we will never have the answer to, many of which the residents didn't in the situation either. Is there an easily defensible room or location within the property? Would they be able to first access their firearm and then get to this room without encountering the burglar on the way? Would the burglar have been able to work out the residents' plan and engage them from an unexpected direction, or even through the door/wall? Was he armed with anything beyond a handgun? They had the armed burglar boxed in either way and knew his positon; rather than depriving themselves of situational awareness as well as the aforementioned advantages and retreating to a corner and gamble on the burglar's intentions, they neutralised any potential threat he posed by immediately meeting him with force rather than waiting to find out the answers to those questions. My question to you is how is this [I]worse[/I] than your proposed solution, which could've potentially compromised the likelihood of them coming out unscathed to a further degree?[/QUOTE] What? I'm not talking about having a dedicated "safe room" where you go in case of intrusion. I'm just saying you can take your weapon and stay where you are while being prepared. I mean if you have to worry about not encountering the intruder while going for your gun that applies to taking on the guy head on too. I don't really understand why you mention situational awareness when you are the most aware of your surroundings and the intruder's potential point of entry by staying in your bedroom, while the intruder has no idea you're in the room nor where you are in the room before entering, unless he can see through walls somehow. If you actively seek out the threat you're in the opposite situation. [editline]5th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51312028]We can talk about hypotheticals until the cows come home, because not everybody's going to simply stick to a given set of guidelines when, you know, somebody broke into their house with the intention to steal their shit, and if necessary, murder the witnesses to avoid getting fingered. The robber is responsible for getting his ass shot because he took his chances by trying to rob the house, period. A homeowner should also be responsible for defending himself and his property if he chooses to, because not everybody's going to just like that let a robber get away with their hard earned stuff, and robberies have consequences beyond the loss of money or goods. You can't always expect the police to be around or even nearby to answer a 911 call, and anything can happen between making this call and the responding officers turning up. Oh, and what happens, suppose the officers show up, and one or two of them get slain by the robber? That massively complicates an already existing shitshow. I'm all for allowing people to take their own choices when it comes to protecting their homes, their property, and their lives. You don't gamble on the home invader's good intentions when it comes to a break in. If they want to take their chances by giving the home invader free rein to take their possessions and leave without confronting him, that's just one choice among many, and you can't uphold this as being the right choice or the only moral choice a homeowner should take when it comes to a home invasion. This also applies if the homeowner decides to investigate the situation and confront whoever broke into his house. There are literally too many variables involved for any concrete judgment to be made, especially not via armchair analysis from anybody in this situation, and there is no accounting for likelihood as much as blind chance.[/QUOTE] Why do you guys keep missing the point and think I'm siding with the intruder here? I'm not talking about morals here, I'm talking about survival, and putting your life and that of your family on the line because you don't want to get your stuff stolen somewhat puts that in jeopardy.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51312076]What? I'm not talking about having a dedicated "safe room" where you go in case of intrusion. [/QUOTE] Neither was I. [quote]I'm just saying you can take your weapon and stay where you are while being prepared. I mean if you have to worry about not encountering the intruder while going for your gun that applies to taking on the guy head on too. I don't really understand why you mention situational awareness when you are the most aware of your surroundings and the intruder's potential point of entry by staying in your bedroom, while the intruder has no idea you're in the room nor where you are in the room before entering, unless he can see through walls somehow. If you actively seek out the threat you're in the opposite situation.[/quote] Situational awareness as it relates to their knowledge of 1: Where the burglar is, 2: his possible and likely next moves. In this case they weren't in their bedroom. The burglar was in their bedroom and they were on the ground floor. So either way, defending their position means the burglar has to go through them while giving him the opportunity to strategise and therefore possibly win the firefight. And since he saw the residents enter the house from that position, he knows this. The resulting action would've been the same or worse. And in either case, you're advocating the engagement of the intruder, just under different conditions - disadvantageous ones given what we know of the situation.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51312110]Neither was I. Situational awareness as it relates to their knowledge of 1: Where the burglar is, 2: his possible and likely next moves. In this case they weren't in their bedroom. The burglar was in their bedroom and they were on the ground floor. So either way, defending their position means the burglar has to go through them while giving him the opportunity to strategise and therefore possibly win the firefight. And since he saw the residents enter the house from that position, he knows this. The resulting action would've been the same or worse. And in either case, you're advocating the engagement of the intruder, just under different conditions - disadvantageous ones given what we know of the situation.[/QUOTE] Alright, I realise that it's not as clear cut in a situation where the intruder can come from several places. Still, I wanted to point out that being aggressive is not always the best course of action.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51312155]Alright, I realise that it's not as clear cut in a situation where the intruder can come from several places. Still, I wanted to point out that being aggressive is not always the best course of action.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, someone actually conceded? I don't know how to respond to this It's not even "aggression", they didn't know the guy was armed up til he shot at them. Such a course of action led to them establishing this before he could leverage that fact in any real way, and put them in the best position to deal with that threat directly. Had the burglar been unarmed, they could've forced his surrender. Unfortunately that wasn't the case, but it was one of the best possible outcomes to the situation. Everyone's alive, the homeowners still have all their shit minus one shotgun shell, and the burglar didn't get away to go commit other crimes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.