littleneutrino, on 30 November 2012 - 16:47, said:
I can understand protecting your stuff with force, however, killing in any fashion is going to far. (unless of course you shot them in the leg or arm and they died of complications or something however, intentionally killing them is going too far.
It is INCREDIBLY hard to shoot at an arm or a leg. Even more so if they are moving. You shoot the biggest part of the target, which turns out to the Center Of Mass. Just because you shoot someone in an arm or a leg, doesn't mean the threat is stopped.
devHead, on 30 November 2012 - 16:29, said:
If he knew people had broken into his house, why didn't he call the police first, or at least threaten the teens that he'll shoot if they didn't get out? Why would you hide in wait, especially if you didn't know whether the kids were armed? It just seems like the two teenagers got the full brunt of his frustration of having his place broken into and paid for it with their lives. But to shoot them afterwards even more, that's just sick and demented. Is it really self-defense if the other party doesn't have any weapons and you just shoot them? To me, self-defense is when you feel you're physically threatened with violence, and so you have to retaliate. He didn't do this; it's like he just decided the next two people who broke into his house were going to be executed. What a psychotic nut.
To be fair maybe he did call the police first. If you check out online, even in bigger cities. There are 911 calls where it took the police 10+ Mins to even get there. One 911 call, a womans husband and daughter were shot and killed, it took Phoenix PD 18 MINS TO MAKE ENTRY.
I know alot of people wouldn't "Hide and wait". I would wait until they get close. I would not announce myself and give away my position. Once I could tell if they had a weapon capable of during seriously bodily harm, or death. Then that's it.
How about...Don't break in and expect to come out?