joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
I want to know why the homeowner can afford a shotgun but not a flashlight? Why he can afford ammo but not batteries. Since its apparent he can place ammo into the shotgun like most people could place batteries into a flashlight. Which is more useful to...SEE...in the dark, Heretic? A Shotgun or a Flashlight? I guess its both to complicated and mentally challenging to turn on the lights in and out of the house (particularly the garage...) for that guy. Yet society entrusts him with a shotgun; how insane is that?
Wow. The dumbassery just gets deeper with you, doesn't it Joether? Couldn't afford a flashlight? Got a link for that assertion? What I suspect you are trying to ask is, "why didn't the resident investigate further, instead of opening fire?"
It was night and dark; he could not see what or who had entered his garage. Shotguns are generally two handed weapons; does this guy have a third arm? No. Therefore, he didn't have a flashlight with him. So why he not investigate further? He was already out in the open, without backup, nor a clear line of retreat should he come under opposing fire from another direction. Your assuming 1 ) The kid was alone at that property (which he wasn't) and 2) he was armed and had intent for harmful actions to those in the home (doesn't appear likely given the history of the case).
Is it not a decent idea to know WHO and WHAT your firing at? Least it be someone or something you would regret killing? Like a police officer investigating something? A neighbor's dog? Or a scared shitless foreign exchange teenage student? Would it have cost him more to call out the warning? As I've already mentioned, he was a dumbass for positioning himself in that horrible tactical location in the first place; he wouldn't have made it worst by revealing his location.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Without getting into the wisdom of the decision for the moment, the reason is quite clear. Because he had already made up his mind about the perceived threat. He already knew from the security system there was an intruder in the home (and yes, I consider an attached garage to be part of the house). The shooter wanted a weapon, so that is what he took with him.
No, he had a 'MOTION DETECTOR'. The door was left partially open. Anything from a cat on up to a grizzly bear could have wandered in there. Now, if he had a camera, why not call out to the individual: "Dude, I know your in there, come on out and we'll chat on friendly terms. Or you can wait until the police arrive and get charged." He didn't have a camera nor know what he was up against. Nor, that he was being watched by this kid's friends.
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
That is the core of the castle doctrine - the decision about how to respond to an intruder belongs to the lawful occupant of the home. If the criteria are met, that's the end of it. No criminal liability, and no civil liability, either. Don't like it? There are 4 states (IIRC) without some version of it on the books. Google away, and take your pick.
So 'castle doctrine' means to exit the stronghold, loop around the side on an attack angle, to hit the enemy from the rear by being out in the open? That sounds more like a 'counter-attack' than 'self defense action'. The kid never breached the house. In order to breach, one has to open and/or destroy a portal to gain entry. The homeowner left his castle's drawbridge down for the 'invading army' to march right in. Now if the kid had breached the home by opening/breaking in, and the homeowner had his shotgun and blasted him to pieces; I wouldn't be arguing this...
As is known, the homeowner was aware of burglaries in the area; so why did he not lock his house up?
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Do I have any sympathy for the dead dumbass and his family? Sure, in about the same measure as for someone who gets killed trying to beat a train at the crossing. Darwin Award.
A pile of errors took place that night. Yeah, the kid made a foolish judgement call. Bu then there are plenty of teenagers that make foolish errors in judgement. It has to do with the fact that the human brain is (unlike the rest of the body) is not fully developed by the age of 20 (let alone the teens). In fact, it will not be for a decade after that, will the male brain be fully developed. That much is known in medical science. The homeowner suffered a number of errors on his part. Just having a gun does not instill someone with tactical skill. He couldn't see the target, out in the open, no cover, no back up, no retreat, his actions were being watched without his knowledge and he made a snap decision out of fear rather then skill. The teenager paid a very heavy penalty for his one mistake. The homeowner, even if he's never jailed (or goes to court) will live the rest of his days knowing he killed an unarmed teenager doing stupid teenage stuff. People will blow sunshine up his ass that its not his fault, nor he did anything wrong. He knows the truth, and it'll haunt him for the rest of his days.
That is what you can not seem to understand Heretic.
|
RE: Senseless Gun Violence -- Fearful Homeowner Kills U... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread