I Wear Pants;1332779 wrote:Perhaps, but this guy failed to kill them and then decided that instead of doing the morally correct and lawful thing that he was then going to play executioner and in doing so he made himself a murderer. Just because someone breaks into your home doesn't mean whatever you do to them is lawful.

Tiger2003;1332780 wrote:Was it appropriate for them to break into his home?

Pick6;1332785 wrote:Maybe they were just laying there suffering and were inevitably going to die anyways, and he just went for the kill shot to put them out of the misery?

Pick6;1332785 wrote:Maybe they were just laying there suffering and were inevitably going to die anyways, and he just went for the kill shot to put them out of the misery?

SportsAndLady;1332784 wrote:Sooo snot. Is all about the interraccial guy on guys b
reverse bukkake?

Shit. Got. Weird.

Pick6;1332785 wrote:Maybe they were just laying there suffering and were inevitably going to die anyways, and he just went for the kill shot to put them out of the misery?

Pick6;1332785 wrote:Maybe they were just laying there suffering and were inevitably going to die anyways, and he just went for the kill shot to put them out of the misery?

I Wear Pants;1332779 wrote:Perhaps, but this guy failed to kill them and then decided that instead of doing the morally correct and lawful thing that he was then going to play executioner and in doing so he made himself a murderer. Just because someone breaks into your home doesn't mean whatever you do to them is lawful.

jmog;1332880 wrote:I'm sorry, but I am one of the biggest gun rights/castle doctrine/protect your family guys out there. However, if what is being reported is true (we'll know at the trial) then anyone saying what he did was "ok" is kind of sick.

I absolutely shoot someone breaking into my house, and I absolutely shoot to kill. However, if I suck and don't kill them but they are completely incapacitated (meaning can do me no more harm) I would have to call the police.

Of course, what he should have done is just made all the shots rapid fire (empty a whole clip) then he would have been cleared by the authorities.

Don't fire once, see how the intruder is doing, then execute them. Shoot multiple times in the first place to make sure they are dead.

fish82;1331542 wrote:All that's missing in this story is the trip to the wood chipper out back.

jmog;1332880 wrote:I'm sorry, but I am one of the biggest gun rights/castle doctrine/protect your family guys out there. However, if what is being reported is true (we'll know at the trial) then anyone saying what he did was "ok" is kind of sick.

I absolutely shoot someone breaking into my house, and I absolutely shoot to kill. However, if I suck and don't kill them but they are completely incapacitated (meaning can do me no more harm) I would have to call the police.

Of course, what he should have done is just made all the shots rapid fire (empty a whole clip) then he would have been cleared by the authorities.

Don't fire once, see how the intruder is doing, then execute them. Shoot multiple times in the first place to make sure they are dead.

Sykotyk;1333280 wrote:Exactly.

It may not have been premeditated, but he knew what he was doing and going to do. In actuality, I don't think he was even fearing for his life. He had a 'plan' setup for if someone broke into his house. If he had enough ability to construct a plan it should've included subduing them (even with gunshots) and alerting authorities to apprehend them. His ability to defend himself is limited to DEFENDING himself. He went on the offensive. That's where he crossed the line.

reclegend22;1333317 wrote:If my home had been broken into by cat burglars as many times as this guy's reportedly had, I'd have a 'plan' set up for the next one too. And that plan would not be constructed around "subduing" them and then alerting the authorities. Who are you, Kevin McCallister? This guy had no idea who was entering his home in the middle of the night, especially since they were likely masked. These are robbers, not trick or treaters. You go for the kill. I have no problem with the guy being on the so-called "offensive" in that scenario. Enough is a fucking enough.

Now, the fact that the guy apparently went all Saw on these people after he had critically wounded them is pretty atypical. I do not agree with that. That's devil worship type shit.

I Wear Pants;1333318 wrote:It's murder type ****.

reclegend22;1333320 wrote:I agree with that. Haha. Do you not agree, though, that being on the "offensive" and planning to shoot the next intruder dead -- you are planning to shoot the next intruder "dead" because you shoot for the kill in that type of scenario -- is okay in that situation? That "situation" being that the man had been robbed in the dark of night several times in the recent past. It is in my book.

friendfromlowry;1333331 wrote:This discussion on whether or not to shoot and where to shoot is too confusing. If someone breaks into my house, they'll meet a scoop slam followed by the elbow drop off the counter. Oooohhhh Yeaaahh!

ManO'War;1333386 wrote:Why would the girl continue to break in when obviously she heard the gun shots from her cousin being shot??

Something is wrong there....she had to be really high.

Fly4Fun;1333448 wrote:
I hate all the "they were athletes, they were popular, every one loved them, they had so much energy, they were working towards their future" crap. No need to dance on their grave, but to pretend like they were stand up individuals is a laughing stock.

Commander of Awesome;1333485 wrote:No kidding, I even heard they cussed at live sporting events.