If you use your gun this is what you're up against.

[Kevin125 4,772]

There was a difference of opinion about the shooting before the facts came out.  Some thought shooting a guy as he was leaving while both shooter and "target" were outside the house was over the top.  Maybe so... But the guy attacked the shooter.. and got himself dead.  So ultimately a Happy Ending.....

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

Keyboard commandos who don't understand the 2A, and the natural right to defend one's self and property.

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

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

For those who have not done so, I would strongly urge you to read In the Gravest Extreme and Lethal Force by the esteemed Massad Ayoob.  Both deal with when the use of deadly force is justified.

[raz-0 1,264]

No typo. I know SHE is the homeowner, and HE is the scumbag. Read my post carefully. I'm saying the female homeowner was a victim of a burglary.

 

I won't be surprised if they do file charges against her. But something doesn't add up if this article is presenting actual truth. She was alerted to a break in at her home presumably via a remote alarm. Cops were notified, and she went home while cops are en route. When she gets home, she observes BG trying to enter her home. Was the scumbag just that slow at breaking in, or was she just around the block? The article also states that she entered her home after the bad guy and searched her home room by room. IF, and that's a big IF, the prosecution wants to pursue charges, they can argue that she was in no physical harm and should not have entered her home. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the legalities of her following the perp into her home, tactically, it was not the wise thing to do. We are not cops. Our main job in a situation like this is to preserve our own lives or other innocent life. Having said that, if she had loved ones inside, it's a completely different ballgame and she did the right thing.

 

 

Your conclusion is semi-rational if your first priority is preserving your own life and and regard material possessions as something not worth killing someone over. However, that all goes out the window if there is the possibility that a family member could be in the house. Ay a hypothetical example, say I am a single parent with a latch key 13 year old who called to tell me he is going over his friends after school and will be home for dinner. That such a scenario means he will be home usually between 4:30 and 5:30pm, and the alarm goes off and notifies me at 5:15pm and the kid isn't answering his cell. Do I sit around leaving my kid's life in the hands of the police who haven't managed to show up yet? After running into one of the criminals on the way into the house who was willing to aggressively confront someone who is lethally armed? 

 

It's a newspaper with incomplete information, highly likely to be trying to phrase stuff so as to stir up shit in a manner to please the gun grabber agenda. I can see the situation going multiple ways given the lack of info, but given ho the article phrases things to IMPLY someone shooting someone in the back as they are stuck halfway out a window, then says other things below the fold to imply that there was a potentially violent confrontation, history tells me they are raking the muck and stirring the shit. 

[Zeke 5,504]

Op

Any updates from the local media?

[EX Carnival man 223]

Op

Any updates from the local media?

Nope I've been checking.  Nothing yet

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

Your conclusion is semi-rational if your first priority is preserving your own life and and regard material possessions as something not worth killing someone over. However, that all goes out the window if there is the possibility that a family member could be in the house. Ay a hypothetical example, say I am a single parent with a latch key 13 year old who called to tell me he is going over his friends after school and will be home for dinner. That such a scenario means he will be home usually between 4:30 and 5:30pm, and the alarm goes off and notifies me at 5:15pm and the kid isn't answering his cell. Do I sit around leaving my kid's life in the hands of the police who haven't managed to show up yet? After running into one of the criminals on the way into the house who was willing to aggressively confront someone who is lethally armed? 

 

It's a newspaper with incomplete information, highly likely to be trying to phrase stuff so as to stir up shit in a manner to please the gun grabber agenda. I can see the situation going multiple ways given the lack of info, but given ho the article phrases things to IMPLY someone shooting someone in the back as they are stuck halfway out a window, then says other things below the fold to imply that there was a potentially violent confrontation, history tells me they are raking the muck and stirring the shit. 

 

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.

[Zeke 5,504]

Nope I've been checking. Nothing yet

K

[Zeke 5,504]

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.

Bro it's your shit. You value it, and the repeated burglaries as you feel morally compased by. This woman did the same. She is not you, you are not her.

[Bighungry618 450]

This is where we differ.  My things are mine.  You want to come into my house and take them, I will meet your theft with deadly force.  You don't want to be met with deadly force?  THEN DON'T STEAL MY SHIT.

 

What is the appropriate level of force in your opinion?  Or should we just let said shitbag walk away with our possessions?

 

What if it wasn't her TV or laptop but instead was her other gun?  Does deadly force now apply because of WHAT he is stealing?

 

+1....My Shit, Not Yours....you want it? ...buy it.... or risk your life trying to take it from me.  I applaud her effort to police her own property and to refuse the chance at becoming a victim again.  Why shouldn't we homeowners take a stake in and be responsible for protecting what is ours, what goals we work toward and what we possess as a result of that work?   Has our time in NJ skewed our views to such an extent that we question the validity of a right versus wrong scenario that ended with right as the victor?  I know I won't lose any sleep over another "good boy" shitbird looking up at 6 feet of dirt.

[EX Carnival man 223]

+1....My Shit, Not Yours....you want it? ...buy it.... or risk your life trying to take it from me.  I applaud her effort to police her own property and to refuse the chance at becoming a victim again.  Why shouldn't we homeowners take a stake in and be responsible for protecting what is ours, what goals we work toward and what we possess as a result of that work?   Has our time in NJ skewed our views to such an extent that we question the validity of a right versus wrong scenario that ended with right as the victor?  I know I won't lose any sleep over another "good boy" shitbird looking up at 6 feet of dirt.

I think some NJ resident gun owners are starting to show signs of the 'Stockholm Syndrome'.  They have been held hostage by the state of NJ too long. 

[Darrenf 422]

I think some NJ resident gun owners are starting to show signs of the 'Stockholm Syndrome'. They have been held hostage by the state of NJ too long.

Has nothing to do with NJ and everything to do with being a reasonable human being. It's shit like this that gives the anti's ammunition because they are right, some owners are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

[Tunaman 563]

Has nothing to do with NJ and everything to do with being a reasonable human being. It's shit like this that gives the anti's ammunition because they are right, some owners are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

There is NOTHING REASONABLE about some asshole breaking in your house and stealing your stuff.  HE has decided that this may be his last day.  So long sucka!  You should have thought about the consequences before you decided on home invasion as a career.  And "I" am a reasonable guy.

[Darrenf 422]

There is NOTHING REASONABLE about some asshole breaking in your house and stealing your stuff. HE has decided that this may be his last day. So long sucka! You should have thought about the consequences before you decided on home invasion as a career. And "I" am a reasonable guy.

No one is defending the guy breaking into a house. If you were reasonable you wouldn't put forth that straw man. No one is saying he isn't risking his life. What is not reasonable is to kill someone just because you might lose an object. Only threats to body are reasonably met with deadly force. Your Caps lock rant does nothing to help portray you as reasonable.

[45Doll 5,906]

One thought. If the penalties today for 'broken glass' crimes were appropriately severe, a lot of us might not be inclined to shoot to kill someone stealing our TV.

 

In the late 60's, a stolen car was called 'grand theft auto' and was punishable by 5 years in state prison. If today's 'joyriders' (car thieves) were all put in state prison for 5 years when caught, they might not be so cavalier about their crimes. Current or future. Running doughnuts in Newark would not be so much fun.

 

But today we slap them on the wrist and let them out. Especially if they're under 18. So the mayhem continues. Hence the possible overreaction on the part of citizens who see the law as being indifferent about theft of the fruits of their labor: stuff.

[Darrenf 422]

One thought. If the penalties today for 'broken glass' crimes were appropriately severe, a lot of us might not be inclined to shoot to kill someone stealing our TV.

 

In the late 60's, a stolen car was called 'grand theft auto' and was punishable by 5 years in state prison. If today's 'joyriders' (car thieves) were all put in state prison for 5 years when caught, they might not be so cavalier about their crimes. Current or future. Running doughnuts in Newark would not be so much fun.

 

But today we slap them on the wrist and let them out. Especially if they're under 18. So the mayhem continues. Hence the possible overreaction on the part of citizens who see the law as being indifferent about theft of the fruits of their labor: stuff.

No argument here that a lot of penalties do not match the severity of the crimes.

[EX Carnival man 223]

Has nothing to do with NJ and everything to do with being a reasonable human being. It's shit like this that gives the anti's ammunition because they are right, some owners are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

If you live your life worried about what the anti gunners are going to think it just might get you killed.  There ultimate goal is the confiscation and meltdown of every gun in the United States.  There is no negotiation with them.  This was as much about a confrontation as it was a robbery.  He made a decision to rob that ladies house.  Than he made a very bad decision with a confrontation with a woman with a gun.  No one said criminal's are smart. 

[Darrenf 422]

If you live your life worried about what the anti gunners are going to think it just might get you killed. This was as much about a confrontation as it was a robbery. He made a decision to rob that ladies house. Than he made a very bad decision with a confrontation with a woman with a gun. No one said criminal's are smart.

You're still missing the point that she too made a bad decision. Your constant justification just proves my point, some of us are just looking for a reason to shoot someone. I don't care what the anti's think, I care what we think. And if we are constantly showing that we just want to shoot someone to mete out justice unilaterally, that will result in further restrictions of my rights.

[SW9racer 262]

Has nothing to do with NJ and everything to do with being a reasonable human being...

I disagree. We have been bred with NJ principles. We are taught to stand firm, and look away while we are being peed on. It is impossible for us to think like the other 45+ states do. We are incapable of comprehending the thought of what is reasonable.

[Darrenf 422]

We are incapable of comprehending the thought of what is reasonable.

Then I guess you'll be happy to forfeit your rights. I mean, if you can't be expected to understand what's reasonable, then it stands to reason you should not have weapons.

[Guest]

You're still missing the point that she too made a bad decision. Your constant justification just proves my point, some of us are just looking for a reason to shoot someone. I don't care what the anti's think, I care what we think. And if we are constantly showing that we just want to shoot someone to mete out justice unilaterally, that will result in further restrictions of my rights.

 

She made the right decision and protected her hard earned property and probably her life.

 

She was not out looking for someone to shoot, I don't know where you get that idea. Just because some of us agree with her decision to shoot, does not mean we are out to shoot someone. And if the anti's (or you) don't see it that way, too bad

[Guest]

Then I guess you'll be happy to forfeit your rights. I mean, if you can't be expected to understand what's reasonable, then it stands to reason you should not have weapons.

"Reasonable" is relative to each situation and each individual, if you don't understand that, maybe you should give up your rights to own a weapon

 

But I'm sure you believe we need more "reasonable" gun laws to prevent crime, right?

[Darrenf 422]

"Reasonable" is relative to each situation and each individual, if you don't understand that, maybe you should give up your rights to own a weapon

 

But I'm sure you believe we need more "reasonable" gun laws to prevent crime, right?

And yet more Strawmen. When you can argue the points I make, and not what you think I mean, or things I didn't even say, I'll engage you, but don't expect a response to this nonsense.

[Guest]

And yet more Strawmen. When you can argue the points I make, and not what you think I mean, or things I didn't even say, I'll engage you, but don't expect a response to this nonsense.

 

Because I'm right and you have no defense which will allow you to respond. 

[Darrenf 422]

Because I'm right and you have no defense which will allow you to respond. 

Who didn't see that coming?  A saying about chess and pigeons comes to mind.  Yes you are right in refuting the points I never made.  So again, you are right in that I won't respond to them, just like I said.  Want a cookie?

[Guest]

Then I guess you'll be happy to forfeit your rights. I mean, if you can't be expected to understand what's reasonable, then it stands to reason you should not have weapons.

 

 

Who didn't see that coming?  A saying about chess and pigeons comes to mind.  Yes you are right in refuting the points I never made.  So again, you are right in that I won't respond to them, just like I said.  Want a cookie?

 

Seems I quoted you perfectly and did not put words in your mouth, where did you get that idea?

 

You seem to be seeing things that do not exist, are you feeling ok or is this normal for you?

[djg0770 481]

The fall from a high horse hurts more than the body.

[Darrenf 422]

Seems I quoted you perfectly and did not put words in your mouth, where did you get that idea?

 

You seem to be seeing things that do not exist, are you feeling ok or is this normal for you?

 

They say sarcasm isn't understood until sometime in one's mid teens.  Perhaps you missed the words "I mean", which is an indicator of a sarcastic comment.  But please, go on about how I am for more gun laws. 

[Guest]

And yet more Strawmen. When you can argue the points I make, and not what you think I mean, or things I didn't even say, I'll engage you, but don't expect a response to this nonsense.

 

 

They say sarcasm isn't understood until sometime in one's mid teens.  Perhaps you missed the words "I mean", which is an indicator of a sarcastic comment.  But please, go on about how I am for more gun laws. 

 

Is this your sarcastic "I mean"? 

 

Lets get back to defining "reasonable" in the context of what you think is a reasonable response to the shooting and why my stance is not reasonable? 

[Darrenf 422]

Is this your sarcastic "I mean"? 

 

Lets get back to defining "reasonable" in the context of what you think is a reasonable response to the shooting and why my stance is not reasonable? 

Already been covered, since you seem pretty good at rereading things, try it one more time.