Sig226GuyNJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqkEH7C2nDE

Thank you for your explanation. I hate that these evil things happen just like you. I'm sorry for taking our statement the wrong way. Excellent points to support your argument and after reading your last two posts, I do agree. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't implying that all rounds are the same. I was just asking if HD rounds make that big of a difference, or at least that's what I was trying to ask.

Why would you assume I think we should be using 10/22's or the like for HD simply because I posed a question? Why would you assume I wouldn't want every advantage when it comes to defending my family? I simply posed a question and now you assume that I think 22's are the best at home defense ammo. I'm simply asking a question.

Wtf do you mean when you say you're disturbed by me using that tragedy as an example? What are you implying? Out of the 174 that he fired, how many hit the victims? I ask because the more important question in this discussion isn't how many he fired, but how many rounds hit their mark, and what was the average amount of rounds it took to kill the 32 victims? This would give us a better understanding of how effective target loads are.

I agree that pistol rounds suck compared to rifle rounds, but the VaTech shooter killed 32 people with a 9mm and a .22.

How much difference does ammo really make? I don't think all of these mass shooters and buying the kid of ammo mentioned here. They are probably buying and using plinking ammo and if that's the case, it seems to work pretty well.

Here's the link. http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/cardinale/cardinale-to-introduce-bill-allowing-access-to-carry-permits-for-lawful-citizens/26375

There you go being emotional again.

It's funny you are accusing those with a differing point of view from your own as letting their emotions and feelins as you put it, get the better of us when it's evident from your posts that you are the one letting your feelings get the best of you. You are letting your past experiences dictate how to claim you would react to a situation like this and you don't care whether it's right or wrong in the eyes of the law or your peers. Because of your past negative experiences, you are letting your emotions dictate what you say and how you act. This is no different from the parents of children who are victims of mass shootings coming out and saying we need more gun control in this country.

"You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into." - Ben Goldacre I should've remembered the above quote before continuing to post here.

Again, more assumptions being made. No one said she should move to a different residence so I have no idea where you're getting that from. And no one is arguing against SYG laws. But will the court view this as a true STG incident when she put herself into the situation? We shall see and I hope the state does choose to not prosecute, but regardless of whether they do or not, doesn't change the fact that she made a bad situation worse.

Excellent points! To the others who disagree with me, this ^ is how you try to get your point across.... You are 100% correct is saying it is her right to go home and enter it. I have not, cannot, and will not disagree with that statement. She had every right to go home, enter it, and search it but the point I'm trying to make is that it was probably the worst mistake she could have made in that moment. She may not have perceived any danger in doing so, but it still doesn't change the fact that she did indeed put herself in harms way, regardless of what her perception of the situation was. This can also give the prosecutor fuel if the state does decide to charge her. The state could argue that she put herself in harm's way. Going back several posts, I think it was High Exposure who made the point of "You cannot put yourself in a dangerous situation and then cry self defense", or something like that as I'm going off memory. On the contrary, she as the defendant could and should argue that she did not know she was putting herself in harm's way as she did not know for a fact that someone was in her home. Then the prosecutor could argue that if an alarm goes off, it can be assumed someone was in her home. The point I'm trying to make is, does anyone really want to put up with all of the possible aftermath scenarios that can and does happen after a shooting if you really didn't have to shoot someone? I'm not risking my family, life, freedom, finances over property.

Thank you for expressing your opposing views with respect and thought. It's nice to see someone is able to think logically despite having a different point of view. When you say that in your opinion, "her actions were correct", does this include her putting herself in harms way by exiting her vehicle and searching her home? And while it is absolutely true that the kid should not have been there in the first place, it still doesn't change the fact that she alone at that exact moment put herself in harms way with her actions. This cannot be denied. Businesses have insurance to take care of stuff like that. I'd much rather deal with insurance companies than a judge and jury that will determine if my shooting of someone else was justified or not. I do agree that this issue is not cut and dry, given the facts that are presented about this particular case today. Now, if this woman was woken up in the middle of the night to an intruder standing over her while she lies in bed, then yes, shooting the perp would be pretty cut and dry. However, even in a cut and dry scenario, the shooter can still be taken to court over a civil lawsuit which is the point I'm trying to make. I'll take my chances with the courts if I shoot and kill someone in true self defense. I'm not willing to take my chances in court for shooting and killing someone over property though.

Please read before you get yourself into a world of shit you cannot get out of. http://concealednation.org/2015/03/a-closer-look-at-a-big-question-when-can-you-legally-shoot-someone-in-self-defense/

If you read each post, you'll see many posts say such a thing. You made some valid points, but when you say, "Maybe she feared reprise, maybe good'ole Trevon was headed back to his side of the hood to round up some homies to return later.", this is another assumption being made. Again, I'm not saying this kid didn't get what he deserved. What I'm saying is, it's impossible at this time to call this a good shoot or not. You guys really need to read up on the use of deadly force. Here's a quick outline that quotes Massad Ayoob as saying, "Deadly force is justified only when undertaken to prevent imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." Is Massad Ayoob a pussy too? Also, for those of you saying "What if he came back with a gang"? Read this:" Opportunity also means the attack must be here and now. Thinking that someone may harm you at a future date or at another place is not a legally acceptable justification for using lethal force." http://www.secondcalldefense.org/using-lethal-force

It was just a robbery until she confronted him. She is the one that at this exact moment initiated the confrontation. Again, you're making assumptions when you say "Once he confronted her and she was in fear of her life she had every right to defend herself with deadly force." How do you know she was in hear for her life? Were you there? She could have said she was in fear of her life, which I haven't read anything saying she actually made that statement. But even if she had, do we just automatically believe that she is telling the truth, just b/c the kid is a picture perfect image of a part of what's wrong in this country, and is a perfect picture image of what you and some others hate based on some snide remarks made in this thread. The reality is that neither you nor I know what happened, and neither of us can assume anything. We should only comment based on what we know at this time. Hell, even the stories of him climbing out of the window could be false. She could have shot him in her bedroom as he was trying to rape her for all we know. But my point is, we don't know. Therefore, we can't automatically assume this was a good shoot. Just like I am not automatically calling it a bad shoot.

Excellent response!

I love the assumptions being made in this thread. First, I'm a keyboard commando pussy. Now, you're assuming Johnson willingly confronted a person who had a gun pointed at him. How do you know this to be fact? Were you there? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't. The fact remains, you do not know this to be fact, just like I do not know it to be a tale. And that is the point I'm trying to make. I am not calling this a bad shoot, but at the same time, it's impossible for anyone to call it a good shoot until all the facts are released. What about this is so hard to understand?

Honestly, this thread is an example of what it must be like to talk to a bunch of libs who are unable to see past their own warped thinking and brainwashed mentality. It seems some of you failed reading comprehension in school, which is the only logical explanation I can come up with based on the ridiculous statements made in this thread by those who think it's ok to shoot anyone even if no one's life is in imminent danger. Kind of sad really. I will repeat this for the last time for those of you who failed to understand the points of several people in here who actually use their brains to think logically. Let me try to be as clear as possible which is proving to be tough in this thread. No one is saying this scumbag is a "good boy" who didn't deserve to die. No one is saying this "good boy" is a victim. No one is saying the female homeowner is a criminal for what she did. No one is sympathizing with the "good boy" or his family. No one is saying the "good boy" deserved to live. No one is calling for restricted gun rights of law abiding citizens. No one is forfeiting their rights by using sound judgement. No one is saying that a homeowner should not draw their gun on an intruder. No one is saying a homeowner should just wait in their room with a gun pointed at the door. (Although tactically this would be the wiser decision if you did not have family members throughout the house you needed to get to to assure their safety) No one is saying taking a life of a thief to defend another life is wrong. No one is a "pussy" as some have implied others to be, for using deadly force as a last resort, instead of a first resort. The internet commandos are the ones calling for outright shooting of anyone and everyone that dares to attempt to steal something from them. Not the ones who are using sound reasoning to understand that there are no two situations that can be treated in the same exact manner. What I and some others are saying is that, she made a mistake by entering her home and searching it, thus physically putting herself in danger. And for those of you who say that the "good boy" put her in danger, are not understanding that had she never exited her vehicle to go into her home, she would not have been in any immediate danger. Although the information is scarce, what we do know is this. Woman gets an alert of a break in. Woman goes home. Woman exits her car. Woman searches her home room by room. Woman encounters "good boy" as he's climbing out the window. There is an altercation between the two. We do not know if it was physical or verbal. Woman shoots "good boy" My question is, how can any of you call this a justified shooting based on these facts alone? What type of altercation was it? One could assume that she had her gun drawn as she is searching her home. Was she outside of her home or inside of her home when she confronted the thief? What type of altercation occurred when she shot him? Do you guys think the thief actually attacked the woman even though she was pointing a gun at him? Or could it be possible he was trying to get away because someone was pointing a gun at him. Where was he shot? In the back? In the chest? In the head? Was he shot as he was approaching her or as he was running away? Until these and other questions are answered, no reasonable person can say whether or not this shooting was justified. To say otherwise is simply ignorant. I see a lot of internet tough guys here who think they'll be able to take a life and not think twice about it. A lot here think they can take a life without consequence and are failing to realize that even if the law is on your side, there comes a lot of baggage with taking a life. Just ask George Zimmerman. Those of you who think it's ok to just shoot anyone because they are being stolen from, are not thinking about the potential consequences of their actions, and are not thinking about their families. Even if you are proven not guilty in a court of law, think of all the years, money, and life that will be taken away from you for trying to defend your actions that day, over a fucking TV or other property. The article states that she saw him climbing out of a window. It also states that she searched her house room by room. If you put two and two together based on these statements, it could be possible she shot him from inside her home, as he was climbing out the window which would make this a bad shoot. But I'm not saying this was the case and that it was a bad shoot. What I'm saying is none of us can say with any certainty whether it was a good shoot or not with what little we know about the case right now.

If you are looking for a .22 that mimics a real AR, you're better off getting the M&P15-22, The Mossberg is fine, but some of the functions are not AR like. For instance, I remember the mag release is very awkward to use. As for "cheap feeling", the M&P15-22 feels like a toy too. But it's a solid rifle that works very well.

You're presenting a completely different scenario. Had the OP's story involved a family member being inside of the home, of course any reasonable person would say the woman did the right thing by going home, entering her home, and searching room by room. However, that is not reported in any of the news stories about this event. So you can't make up hypothetical scenarios and tell me I'm being semi rational since each scenario calls for different ways of managing. Based on the information we've been given about this incident, my posts and High Exposure's posts are more than rational, which is more than I can say about the people in this thread that are so willing to take a life over things that can be replaced.

LMFAO. You make me laugh dude. I don't think you understand the definition of keyboard commando.

Be careful HE. You may get called a goody two shoes pussy and told to get off of your high horse for talking some common sense.

Not only will they never go to jail, Hillary will be the next POTUS unfortunately.

If true, this makes you no better than criminals. I'd like to believe you're better than that.