Defensive Carry banner

81 - 90 of 90 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,259 Posts
It wasn't so much of a sensitivity problem, more of a really stupid arguments problem that had no feasible resolution.
So there was a lot of that that went on with this particular incident? Can't say I recall a lot of it. So a few folks got a bit over the edge with this, eh? Not good. Maybe a few nerves were touched. In retrospect, as I mentioned it was something that should never have happened. Too bad it did. Nobody won with this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,993 Posts
My wife and I just retired from being teachers in South Florida where I was born and raised. Moreover I was an NRA Instructor there for the FL ccw permit for 30 years. The folks saying this is gonna lead to a murder charge are absolutely correct. He should be charged with being felony stupid, too. This is the kind of case that puts a bad light on gun owners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zonker1986

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Another 17 year old that won't be continuing with his career choice of theft

Why is it that so many try to convert the criminals into victims?

Criminals feel too safe when committing crimes.

Shot in the back means nothing. Perp could've turned his head an threatened the resident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,903 Posts
Discussion Starter #85
Another 17 year old that won't be continuing with his career choice of theft

Why is it that so many try to convert the criminals into victims?

Criminals feel too safe when committing crimes.

Shot in the back means nothing. Perp could've turned his head an threatened the resident.




tell that to the little 50 year old school teacher that is on the jury for your murder trial and see if being shot in the back means nothing. Good luck with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
[/B]


tell that to the little 50 year old school teacher that is on the jury for your murder trial and see if being shot in the back means nothing. Good luck with that.
school teachers always get out of jury duty , the little old lady that was robbed on the bus she serves and not to sympathetic to the perp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Several years ago, Mas Ayoob wrote about the subject of bullet wounds in the back. He claimed that he was successful in more than one case as an expert witness, demonstrating that an entry wound in the back is not conclusive proof that the person who pulled the trigger did so only because the perp's back was presented. I have seen this issue referenced in other sources, so it seems that Mr. Ayoob's courtroom experience is not unique. Call me silly, but I was under the impression that this was "settled science." Indicative? Yes. Irrefutable proof? Nix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
I was trained that is NEVER ok to take a life to protect material things. I stand by that training regardless of what any law says to the contrary.
I am not arguing with the poster, he is "trained person", and trained person will never reconsider based on another person arguments the believes trained into him. But here is some thoughts that our society is polarized around.

Question: How much of time you can steal from person's life for that to be compared to murder?

1. Hypotetically: there is cancer person who left to live less than a Month. Someone kills him, and this is the murder. No one will argue. Stolen one Month of person's life.

2. Somebody spent 20 years to buy a house, and some teen (I use the same synonim for special breed of delinquint of almost adult age) is about to set this house on fire. Home owner shoots the to be arsonist (happens to be in the back) to protect his house. Please, do not divert this into "house must be insured" - insurance is voluntary, no one is obliged to buy insurance for his property. And here we have the society polarized. Some say one should be able to defend property as his life (as he did spent part of his life to earn it). Others say: no property is as valuable as the life, one should not use deadly force to defend property.

3. This case has no fundamental difference from 2., but it is much more challenging. The property that is being defended with weapon is merely a car the person spent two years of life to earn money for. Here you have to compare life of the criminal [let's call things their real names for change] with 2 years of life of guy defending his property. It's only 2 years of life, and after all it is 2 years of his life, not yours or mine, right?

These questions are answered differently, and I would say, it is a split between people who can imagine themselves as the "victims to be", and who refused to fully imagine themselves to become victims. And the split significantly correlates with gun owhenship, but not fully as it is seen from discussion on this thread. There is also some part of people who will judge things defferently for themselves from what they will be it another person.

What answer armed person can derive for himself/herself? Without criticizing another person decision. The answer is based on minimal loss: take a course of actions that minimizes your composed current and furute losses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,903 Posts
Discussion Starter #89
I am not arguing with the poster, he is "trained person", and trained person will never reconsider based on another person arguments the believes trained into him. But here is some thoughts that our society is polarized around.

Question: How much of time you can steal from person's life for that to be compared to murder?

1. Hypotetically: there is cancer person who left to live less than a Month. Someone kills him, and this is the murder. No one will argue. Stolen one Month of person's life.

2. Somebody spent 20 years to buy a house, and some teen (I use the same synonim for special breed of delinquint of almost adult age) is about to set this house on fire. Home owner shoots the to be arsonist (happens to be in the back) to protect his house. Please, do not divert this into "house must be insured" - insurance is voluntary, no one is obliged to buy insurance for his property. And here we have the society polarized. Some say one should be able to defend property as his life (as he did spent part of his life to earn it). Others say: no property is as valuable as the life, one should not use deadly force to defend property.

3. This case has no fundamental difference from 2., but it is much more challenging. The property that is being defended with weapon is merely a car the person spent two years of life to earn money for. Here you have to compare life of the criminal [let's call things their real names for change] with 2 years of life of guy defending his property. It's only 2 years of life, and after all it is 2 years of his life, not yours or mine, right?

These questions are answered differently, and I would say, it is a split between people who can imagine themselves as the "victims to be", and who refused to fully imagine themselves to become victims. And the split significantly correlates with gun owhenship, but not fully as it is seen from discussion on this thread. There is also some part of people who will judge things defferently for themselves from what they will be it another person.

What answer armed person can derive for himself/herself? Without criticizing another person decision. The answer is based on minimal loss: take a course of actions that minimizes your composed current and furute losses.
Here....let me put it in simpler terms. Say the car cost $30,000 and it took the guy five years to save up and he paid cash. That car is the homeowner's pride and joy. Now he has killed a teenager under less than ideal circumstances. Good for the homeowner for protecting his property, The teen was just another scum bag that needed to be exterminated............ but now it will only take him 15 years to pay off his well over $100,000 in legal fees....and that is assuming he does not go to jail. This is nothing but a LOSE-LOSE situation for the homeowner. Right or wrong shoot, the homeowner will regret pulling the trigger until the day he dies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,259 Posts
Several years ago, Mas Ayoob wrote about the subject of bullet wounds in the back. He claimed that he was successful in more than one case as an expert witness, demonstrating that an entry wound in the back is not conclusive proof that the person who pulled the trigger did so only because the perp's back was presented. I have seen this issue referenced in other sources, so it seems that Mr. Ayoob's courtroom experience is not unique. Call me silly, but I was under the impression that this was "settled science." Indicative? Yes. Irrefutable proof? Nix.
I had mentioned that I could immediately think of three examples where shooting someone in the back would not only be justified but prudent as well.

Someone, or several someones, have just broken into your home in the wee hours of the night. You awaken and begin putting your defensive plan into play. You decide to yell for him/them to leave since you have called the police and they are on the way. One of the BG's starts heading up the stairs to the bedroom area and when he reaches the top, he turns and starts towards your child's bedroom. This all takes place more quickly than can be described here and you fire at him, hitting him several times in the back and side.

Same scenario as above but when you yell at them to leave, they do so where they suddenly see your wife arriving home after a business trip. They head straight for her car, weapon out and ready. You fire on them, hitting several in a number of places including their backs.

Again same sort of scenario as above but this time one of them turns and fires at you. You return fire and he appears to be out of ammunition and as he reaches their getaway car, someone hands him a firearm to use against you. You see this and fire several more times at him, hitting him several times including his back.
 
81 - 90 of 90 Posts
Top