94 posts in this topic

There's a little thing called reasonable force you may want to look-up.

Which is a crock of bull****. "Reasonable force". GTFO. If someone enters your home to rob you they should get killed off with no nonsense.

A couple of scumbags visit this misfortune on a guy just sitting in his home and apparently he's now the bad guy. Who brought you up? Because clearly they didn't teach you common sense or morality.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the gun nuts will defend him to the hilt but his actions went WAY beyond self defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is a crock of bull****. "Reasonable force". GTFO. If someone enters your home to rob you they should get killed off with no nonsense.

A couple of scumbags visit this misfortune on a guy just sitting in his home and apparently he's now the bad guy. Who brought you up? Because clearly they didn't teach you common sense or morality.

A classy response but I guess I should have expected that kind of thing. " they should get killed off"...

I know the difference between self-defense and executing someone. If someone was injured and gasping and this 64 year old had the opportunity to position his gun under someones chin and fire they're clearly not an immediate threat to the homeowner.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A classy response but I guess I should have expected that kind of thing. " they should get killed off"...

I know the difference between self-defense and executing someone. If someone was injured and gasping and this 64 year old had the opportunity to position his gun under someones chin and fire they're clearly not an immediate threat to the homeowner.

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

You Sir are messed up. Breaking in does not give the homeowner an open license to kill you, breaking in the homeowner an open license to use REASONABLE FORCE to defend themselves. Reasonable Force means that they are allowed to SHOOT you, or SHOOT TO KILL you, up to the point where they are no longer in a position of having to defend themselves anymore.

If they are still alive, you don't get a "second shot" to kill them (You are allowed to defend yourself, and executions does not fit under defence), you call an ambulance to attempt to save them (even if you think it will be futile or they will die a slow painful death while waiting) and the criminal justice system takes over

Basically when you are shooting to kill them, the aim is to kill them so that they can't harm you, the aim is not to kill them as a way of giving them your own justice.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Don't try to rationalize with the zealots who blindly defend criminals. Just not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond self defense? Of course.

The right action to take from what I read? Possibly.

Though at the time there is no way to know how threatening a person is, WHILE THEY ARE INSIDE YOUR HOUSE, you should always be allowed to assume the worst. Why is it that people who break into other peoples homes they can get special protection and even get the home owner in trouble for having "a house that's to dangerous to steal from"?

Now the fact that this guy took already down intruders and ended their life... a reduced murder charge based on self defense and a crappy situation. No do not take into account what the children were like, its irrelevant, the shooter has no way to know if the intruders are nice or not, but he does know they are not supposed to be there, which at that point in time makes them bad, in every sense of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the plus side, I bet the rest of the teenagers in that town will now think twice about breaking into someones house.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at that picture, he killed the girl too??.. What a raving lunatic to think she'd be any threat. He deserves to be behind bars for life. Just sickening.

Yeah, because cute girls NEVER do anything wrong. They both got what they deserved, even if it DID go a bit to far. Any other country such as china, russia, or anywhere in the middle east they would have been beheaded or shot in front of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is a crock of bull****. "Reasonable force". GTFO. If someone enters your home to rob you they should get killed off with no nonsense.

A couple of scumbags visit this misfortune on a guy just sitting in his home and apparently he's now the bad guy. Who brought you up? Because clearly they didn't teach you common sense or morality.

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.

Don't try to rationalize with the zealots who blindly defend criminals. Just not worth it.

Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Sir are messed up. Breaking in does not give the homeowner an open license to kill you, breaking in the homeowner an open license to use REASONABLE FORCE to defend themselves. Reasonable Force means that they are allowed to SHOOT you, or SHOOT TO KILL you, up to the point where they are no longer in a position of having to defend themselves anymore.

If they are still alive, you don't get a "second shot" to kill them (You are allowed to defend yourself, and executions does not fit under defence), you call an ambulance to attempt to save them (even if you think it will be futile or they will die a slow painful death while waiting) and the criminal justice system takes over

Basically when you are shooting to kill them, the aim is to kill them so that they can't harm you, the aim is not to kill them as a way of giving them your own justice.

Well, if someone decides to break into my house, and I notice they are there, I DO have a license to kill them, contrary to what you believe. He should have just kept his mouth shut. As the sheriff that gave me my CDWL permit class, "The only word the cops should get is yours." I stand 110% behind him, and I am glad they are dead. 2 less degenerates in the world harming other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intruders? Shot. Wounded, down and posing no threat? Call the authorities, don't finish them off. Yes, they are criminals and at the point of time he may have felt like dealing with the situation as he saw fit. But the bottom line is: Defend yourself and your own, but leave the fate of the criminals to the law. I can't condone him murdering anyone, not even those teenage criminals.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/

It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.

Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/

It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.

Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.

+1

I was going to chime in, but you basically summed up what I was going to say. Nicely put.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

The idea of self defence is just what it implies... That you defend yourself. Placing a gun under someone's chin and finishing them off when they're already injured and no longer a threat is not self defence, it's an act of callous murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

No, you don't. Self defence isn't a free pass for murder or torture. Self defence is using reasonable force to defend yourself or your property. If you hacked off someone's limbs while they attacked you and they're disabled (e.g. no longer a threat), then you don't have the right to end their life. I don't know what kind of delusion you're suffering from but in the real world, doing something like that is against the law.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

your words are hurting/harming me, i guess i get to kill you now. ty, its all subject to interpretation now right? who's to say you aren't harming me with your words? that's right baby, I DO! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the US could bare arms? whatever.. I guess the US should make up your mind on which laws are imposed. If you can bare arms you should expect death when you do stupid stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constitution guarantees the right to bare arms, but it never guaranteed the right to use them to murder people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second shots on downed baddies are what cause the controversy. IF they still had weapons in their hand then they're still fair game. If not, then it's an unjustified homicide.

Lesson: take 'em down for the big sleep with the first shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

Sounds like you'd go along great with some of the nuts in the Middle East, Southeastern Asia, remote parts of Africa.. you know, the primitive types who still believe in stoning, decapitation, dismembering..

The second shots on downed baddies are what cause the controversy. IF they still had weapons in their hand then they're still fair game. If not, then it's an unjustified homicide.

Lesson: take 'em down for the big sleep with the first shot.

I think this bit from the article sums it up best:

Hamline University School of Law professor Joseph Olson, who has studied self-defense laws, noted that the number of Smith's shots will make it difficult for him to claim self-defense in court.

"I think the first shot is justified," Olson said. "After the person is no longer a threat because they're seriously wounded, the application of self-defense is over."

Honestly, the lesson depends on the person. If I felt threatened and in fear for my life or my family's lives, you would bet I would attempt to shoot to kill. Assuming I had shot someone, saw the person was unarmed and clearly in no position to threaten me, I'd get the police. Whatever happens, and whether or not this guy faces charges, I wouldn't want to be him. He'll probably have to find a different place of residence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what others have said, this man went too far. He was judge, jury and executioner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you'd go along great with some of the nuts in the Middle East, Southeastern Asia, remote parts of Africa.. you know, the primitive types who still believe in stoning, decapitation, dismembering..

I think this bit from the article sums it up best:

Honestly, the lesson depends on the person. If I felt threatened and in fear for my life or my family's lives, you would bet I would attempt to shoot to kill. Assuming I had shot someone, saw the person was unarmed and clearly in no position to threaten me, I'd get the police. Whatever happens, and whether or not this guy faces charges, I wouldn't want to be him. He'll probably have to find a different place of residence

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

It's a matter of law, based on the values of a normal sane person. You are the outlier in this equation, most people would not find it justified to execute someone if you had the chance just because they are a low-life criminal who wastes oxygen because they did wrong by you, even if they are that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this self confessed part (if accurate) shows that this is beyond self defense and protection

I am for shooting in self defense, but after that its just murder.

they shouldnt of broken into his house then ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.