Homeowner steps up: shoots suspected burglar in the back

Disagree on many points here.

1) You should always fight back. I don't care if it is at personal risk. Get a spine and fight the guy. Scratch his face. It may end the assault.

2) Welfare for the working poor is needed on occasion. A school lunch for a hungry kid or shelter for a mentally handicapped person who can't work. But welfare for criminals, so they don't rob, that is a dumb idea.

3) You do have a right to defend yourself and having a gun to do it is needed. However, gun ownership has great responsiblity, so if you misuse that gun, then you are riskign serious charges against yourself by having one. But when someone is threating your life or home, there is no reason you should have to be at their mercy.

 

More welfare just gives Obama voters more free time to lay around and get into trouble.

If they were forced to get a job to pay for their daily bread instead of giving them food stamps there would be less crime, not more.

 

Bad economy causes more crime

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._past_year_84_predict_economy_will_cause_more

 

Actually that is one point disputed here and not well described in the article. We don't know how well he could see his target. He may very well have been able to clearly see the thief, in fact his hit percentage implies that he probably saw the criminal rather well.

 

You are aware that contextually you just countered welfare in the form of shelter for the mentally handicapped, and school lunches for poor children with they should just get a job.... nice.

 

Since we're talking emotional damages, tell you what anyone shoots in the back and kills someone I love and care about because either they thought they were taking something out of their car, heck even if they actually took something out of the car, and DOESN'T get charged with a crime by the judicial system better sleep with one eye open.

 

I've been trying to paint this exact picture for several pages, and these folks here insist that even trespassing requires deadly force.

BTW I agree with all the self defense situations presented above including the jeweler shooting the teen.

 

His type is not for rectifying any situation other than bringing some anti-capitalist liberal utopia about. His beliefs are the antithesis to freedom and a free market.

(*)(*)(*)(*) right I do.

 

I hear ya , TFM but a lot of folks carry these days , you have a loaded 870 , so you ready for something beside bird hunting ...

 

In which case it is a matter of comprehension, (and perhaps geographically varying common usage).

Giving a solicited opinion upon the morality or otherwise of the actions of a third party in a reported incident, is by no means the same things as lecturing another, unrelated, person, or a community. Lecturing in the context you are using the word means an admonition, reproof, or reprimand. None of which was offered.

That is an opinion to which you are entitled, but this is a discussion board. The condition that opinions be agreeable and useful to certain parties, is not stated in the regulations, nor is that a customary prerequisite of discussion.

I would not presume to disbar any American from giving an opinion upon my society, simply because he does not live there.

 

I appreciate that, but I fear that you misunderstood my point. It is not only poor economic circumstances which generates crime in a society. Inequality and enormous differences in individual economic circumstances, allied to insufficient safety nets, are likely to drive people to both petty crime and violence. The feeling that society has abandoned them makes many people lash out in anger and resentment.

And please bear in mind that I am not talking about one specific society when I make these comments. These ills apply to many societies across the globe.

 

I've seen very little evidence of economic disparity creating crime. There is crime in countries where people make about the same income. I've also never seen any studies showing that increases in safety nets reduce crime or that decreases in safety nets increase crime. I have seen references to the opposite - that increases in safety nets lead to increases in crime.

Perhaps you could pull up some studies or research to back up your position?

 

Lets see what happens the next time a cop shoots an unarmed criminal. I'm guessing the in armed criminal, if he survives, will walk away with a lot of state money. And the cop will be fired. However, a citizen who shoots someone for walking across someones yard will be lauded as a hero for killing someone he felt threatened by. Don't know how police deal with the hypocracy, and now I know why they are more important than ever with a country full off happy trigger gun owners hunting down possible petty thefts from their homes.

 

In part this disparity comes from Americans reluctance to hand any more authority to government agents than absolutely necessary. This has created a healthy paranoia concerning"who watches the watchers?"

It may be overboard but cases of police corruption validate the fear of granting them to much latitude.

 

Avec plaisir Monseur -

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/publications/research-digest-1-violent-crime-web

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465300559028?journalCode=rest

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354924

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/violence

 

With a deduction first and then a rate increase and then dropped coverage for repeated claims.

Try again.

Oh and your homeowners insurance would cover the claim no matter where it is parked.

 

So we are blackmailed into paying more welfare?

 

Then why have crime rates dropped during these hard times?

Why are crime rates dropping?
By Chad Perrin
July 21, 2009, 1:54 PM PDT

Takeaway: Crime rates have dropped dramatically in major cities across the US, despite a worsening economy. What’s behind this trend? Could improving technology have something to do with it?

Major city crime rates in the US in general — and in Washington, DC in particular — have dropped precipitously this year. DC’s murder rate has dropped by between 17% and 30% (depending on who you ask) so far this year, in fact. Other cities seeing such dramatic decreases in crime rates include notable centers of criminal activity such as Boston, Minneapolis, and San Francisco.

As the Washington Post reports in Plummeting Crime Rates Puzzle Experts, many criminologists are baffled by this turn of events. A common assumption is that a worsening economy correlates strongly with a worsening crime rate as levels of desperation and unemployment rise, though many criminologists dispute that fact, especially this year.
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/why-are-crime-rates-dropping/1972

 

The homeowner must be a real "Robert Ford".

 

Glad to see a homeowner protecting themselves witht the rights given to them as an american citizen. No one should be forced to hide whie a burgler or theif does what he wants with their possessions.

 

Why are you going to commit murder?

 

Funny thing is I watched 60 minutes last week.

They showed a homeless family that had nothing yet was finding a way to make it without doing any crime.

 

yes if they don't want to pay more taxes for welfare more neighborhoods will result in this and the burglars may start shooting back

 

I know they may start shooting back. That's why I got a shotgun.

 

eventually houses will have to be barricaded and set up like military outposts because the burglars will outnumber the homeowners with shotguns

this can all be prevented with a few more tax dollars for welfare