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

[Guest]

N

 

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

Nah, your talking in circles and your games are not for me - climb back onto your high horse and ride off

[Darrenf 422]

N

 

Nah, your talking in circles and your games are not for me - climb back onto your high horse and ride off

You're so cute.  Yeah, my games of logic and reason are not for you, obviously.

[Darrenf 422]

For those of you who would use deadly force to protect property when your person is not in danger, I ask you this, is deadly force your last resort, or your tool of first opportunity?

[Guest]

You're so cute.  Yeah, my games of logic and reason are not for you, obviously.

 

thanks for proving my point

For those of you who would use deadly force to protect property when your person is not in danger, I ask you this, is deadly force your last resort, or your tool of first opportunity?

 

If a bad guy is willing to risk jail to take someone else's personal property, he is without a doubt, willing to fight for his freedom which will put the good guys life in danger. 

 

Your reasoning of gun being a "last resort or tool of first opportunity" is not reasonable because every situation is different and every person is different. You are willing to give up your personal belongings to scum bags without a fight (although I'll bet you would try to talk them to death which would get you killed or at the very least beat to a pulp), many of the rest of us are not. Your way encourages bad behavior while the other way stops it.

[djg0770 481]

OK so if I beat the shit out of said bad guy with a baseball bat its all good? As long as u don't just wanna shoot the shit bag. Got it.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

OK so if I beat the shit out of said bad guy with a baseball bat its all good? As long as u don't just wanna shoot the shit bag. Got it.

LOL, time to wipe-off the monitor again!  Coffee all over it!

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I'd give REAL MONEY to find-out if any of these Monday morning Quarterbacks are NRA members who actually READ the "Armed Citizen" column in their monthly edition of "American Rifleman" and/or "American Hunter" magazines.  These publications are replete with examples of firearms defending life, limb AND PROPERTY!  Where have these QB's been for decades, that they don't realize that the pendulum has swung back into the direction of common sense with it comes to firearms usage?

 

Having a gun out and not firing it winds-up saving more lives and property than any other means (just read "Armed Citizen").  But the trick is it HAS TO BE OUT AND SEEN (or at least heard) BY THE PERP(s).  Shame on THEM if they choose to engage the Homeowners after looking into a muzzle.  I didn't have to shoot the Perp trying to break-in to my kitchen, as my loud "bellow" of "State your Name and Bidness!" along with racking a 00-Buck shell into the 12 ga. was enough of a "convincer" to avoid an engagement.  And yes it broke somebody's damn rule of "not giving-away your position", but WTF!  FWIW so does the typical Jersey-esk "retreat-to-your-bedroom-and-point-the-hand gun-at-the-door-routine" while on your knees behind your bed and screaming "I'VE GOT A GUN" as the Perp gets to decide how much of yer shit to steal!

 

I really wish there was an entrance exam and a civics test to get on this forum.  Arthur Kill must have stimulated the On-the-Fence wackjobs or sumthin............ 

[EX Carnival man 223]

For those of you who would use deadly force to protect property when your person is not in danger, I ask you this, is deadly force your last resort, or your tool of first opportunity?

When you have a gun and the person who just robbed your house doesn't and there's a confrontation weather your a man or a woman the last thing you want is for that person to take your gun.  If he gets your gun there a very good chance he's going to use it on you.  Johnson gambled on a confrontation with a home owner who had a gun. he gambled wrong, and he's dead.   Johnson came to HER house. She didn't go to his and shoot him. 

[SW9racer 262]

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.

I see what you did there, awesome! What is that quote from your mentor? Oh yeah, "bark bark bark"

You live in NJ, under NJ law, so unless you leave that means you are ok with them. As you are ok with them, you have no sense of reason as you already forfeited your rights. But, as you live in NJ, you never had that right, so you really lost nothing.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

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.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

When you have a gun and the person who just robbed your house doesn't and there's a confrontation weather your a man or a woman the last thing you want is for that person to take your gun.  If he gets your gun there a very good chance he's going to use it on you.  Johnson gambled on a confrontation with a home owner who had a gun. he gambled wrong, and he's dead.   Johnson came to HER house. She didn't go to his and shoot him.

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?

[EX Carnival man 223]

Her statement was there was a confrontation.  She just didn't speed up to the house saw him climb out a window and shot him in the back .  It just wasn't about a robbery.  That's my point. Once he confronted her and she was in fear of her life she had every right to defend herself with deadly force.  It took a robbery +  confrontation for this fine upstanding citizen who love education with a bright future to get killed.  I'm not sure but I think your point and many others here is once she called the police she should have stayed out of it.  IMO and her statement this was as much about a confrontation as it was a robbery.  It was her home, her property he confronted her. There's no way she's going to be charged. Unless she lived in NJ

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

Her statement was there was a confrontation.  She just didn't speed up to the house saw him climb out a window and shot him in the back .  It just wasn't about a robbery.  That's my point. Once he confronted her and she was in fear of her life she had every right to defend herself with deadly force.  It took a robbery +  confrontation for this fine upstanding citizen who love education with a bright future to get killed.  I'm not sure but I think your point and many others here is once she called the police she should have stayed out of it.  IMO and her statement this was as much about a confrontation as it was a robbery.  It was her home, her property he confronted her. There's no way she's going to be charged. Unless she lived in NJ

 

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.

[Bighungry618 450]

Self-ownership is the basis of property rights. A burglar choosing to put their life in danger in order to violate someone else’s property rights, and having it result in their own death is not the fault of the property owner... it is the fault of the (repeat- in this case) criminal.  Some may be correct when saying that the property itself is not worth a life, but I say that property and defense of property does indeed matter. Theft, however petty, is corrosive to our otherwise free and decent society. Without the vigorous defense of that property a pillar of social order is weakened.  

 

Some reports are saying that our "good boy" was struck with a single bullet to the chest.  I'm not arguing good shoot or bad shoot, as none of us was there, but the decision to risk his life stealing that property was made by the perpetrator, not the property owner.  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.  We don't know, the homeowner didn't know when she shot that single round, but if she feared for her life in that moment I certainly have no issue with her actions and likely neither will the law.  In no way am I personally advocating a shoot first point of view and frankly I don't think anyone else in this thread was either. But.... I think, in my opinion, as I have a right to do believe that she made the right decision to protect herself and to a lesser extent her belongings.  Should the investigation end with the homeowner being charged I'll happily admit that I was wrong.  

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

Self-ownership is the basis of property rights. A burglar choosing to put their life in danger in order to violate someone else’s property rights, and having it result in their own death is not the fault of the property owner... it is the fault of the (repeat- in this case) criminal.  Some may be correct when saying that the property itself is not worth a life, but I say that property and defense of property does indeed matter. Theft, however petty, is corrosive to our otherwise free and decent society. Without the vigorous defense of that property a pillar of social order is weakened.  

 

Some reports are saying that our "good boy" was struck with a single bullet to the chest.  I'm not arguing good shoot or bad shoot, as none of us was there, but the decision to risk his life stealing that property was made by the perpetrator, not the property owner.  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.  We don't know, the homeowner didn't know when she shot that single round, but if she feared for her life in that moment I certainly have no issue with her actions and likely neither will the law.  In no way am I personally advocating a shoot first point of view and frankly I don't think anyone else in this thread was either. But.... I think, in my opinion, as I have a right to do believe that she made the right decision to protect herself and to a lesser extent her belongings.  Should the investigation end with the homeowner being charged I'll happily admit that I was wrong.  

 

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

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

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/

[Tunaman 563]

For those of you who would use deadly force to protect property when your person is not in danger, I ask you this, is deadly force your last resort, or your tool of first opportunity?

it would be last resort of course...or the instant the threat could not be stopped. 

[Bighungry618 450]

Self-ownership is the basis of property rights. A burglar choosing to put their life in danger in order to violate someone else’s property rights, and having it result in their own death is not the fault of the property owner... it is the fault of the (repeat- in this case) criminal.  Some may be correct when saying that the property itself is not worth a life, but I say that property and defense of property does indeed matter. Theft, however petty, is corrosive to our otherwise free and decent society. Without the vigorous defense of that property a pillar of social order is weakened.  

 

Some reports are saying that our "good boy" was struck with a single bullet to the chest.  I'm not arguing good shoot or bad shoot, as none of us was there, but the decision to risk his life stealing that property was made by the perpetrator, not the property owner.  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.  We don't know, the homeowner didn't know when she shot that single round, but if she feared for her life in that moment I certainly have no issue with her actions and likely neither will the law.  In no way am I personally advocating a shoot first point of view and frankly I don't think anyone else in this thread was either. But.... I think, in my opinion, as I have a right to do believe that she made the right decision to protect herself and to a lesser extent her belongings.  Should the investigation end with the homeowner being charged I'll happily admit that I was wrong.  

 

If you read each post, you'll see many posts say such a thing.  

I read each post and for the most part didn't feel any real sincerity,  I'd chalk most posts with that outlook up to not-so-succinct forum bravado and not an indication of real opinion.

 

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. The sentence after the one you highlight is my main point....you are correct it saying that the previous sentence is an assumption although probably a correct one....If she was in fear of her life whether she caused the confrontation or not, in my opinion she was correct in her actions....The confrontation happened regardless of who initiated it because Trevon was not where he belonged in the first place.  

 

 

[Darrenf 422]

it would be last resort of course...or the instant the threat could not be stopped. 

Thank you.  I imagine you would agree that the loss of property is no where near as bad as the loss of life or limb too? 

[robot_hell 72]

I'll throw another wrench into the works just for the heck of it.

 

What about the cases where the loss of one's property means damage to one's livelihood or otherwise ability to survive (e.g. essential medical equipment, your storefront being robbed, loss of livestock, etc)? Is that something that should be codified into law, left to the discretion of a judge, or not even considered at all?

 

If you believe it does not alter the legal standpoint, does it alter the moral one? If it does, to what extent, and at what point is that line drawn? For example, how necessary must that medial equipment be? Does the victim's ability to replace it factor in to the moral standing?

 

Curious to see everyone's take on this, because this issue is not cut and dried.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

 

 

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.

I'll throw another wrench into the works just for the heck of it

 

What about the cases where the loss of one's property means damage to one's livelihood or otherwise ability to survive (e.g. essential medical equipment, your storefront being robbed, loss of livestock, etc)? Is that something that should be codified into law, left to the discretion of a judge, or not even considered at all?

 

If you believe it does not alter the legal standpoint, does it alter the moral one? If it does, to what extent, and at what point is that line drawn? For example, how necessary must that medial equipment be? Does the victim's ability to replace it factor in to the moral standing?

 

Curious to see everyone's take on this, because this issue is not cut and dried.

 

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.

[Zeke 5,504]

Any charges against the homeowner filed yet?

[Bighungry618 450]

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.

 

 

 

Thank you for the intelligent exchange as well.  While I do indeed think that she was correct in going home and exiting her vehicle for the purpose of investigating the reason for which she was alerted by the alarm company, I suggest that at the time she arrived home we simply do not know whether or not she was (or even if she felt she was putting herself) in danger.  She was protecting her property in the absence of the police.  

 

If my alarm company alerts me of any possible issue at my home you can be 100% certain that I will drive home, I will exit my vehicle and I will investigate the cause on my own in the absence of any other possibility, regardless of any perceived danger to myself or regardless if the police are on their way.  Maybe she, as I would be, was concerned for the welfare of a pet.  I will risk life and limb to ensure the safety of my pets....which are classified in NJ as "property."  Whether or not she put herself in harms way by going home does not change the fact that she had the right to do so.  It's her property, it's her "self"...she has the right to protect either.

[Zeke 5,504]

^^^^^ this

 

It truly is up to the individual the extent they are willing to go.

 

By some emotion displayed here she should have moved to a different residence after the first burglary.

 

Her choice to stand her ground. Might not be your choice.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

Thank you for the intelligent exchange as well.  While I do indeed think that she was correct in going home and exiting her vehicle for the purpose of investigating the reason for which she was alerted by the alarm company, I suggest that at the time she arrived home we simply do not know whether or not she was (or even if she felt she was putting herself) in danger.  She was protecting her property in the absence of the police.  

 

If my alarm company alerts me of any possible issue at my home you can be 100% certain that I will drive home, I will exit my vehicle and I will investigate the cause on my own in the absence of any other possibility, regardless of any perceived danger to myself or regardless if the police are on their way.  Maybe she, as I would be, was concerned for the welfare of a pet.  I will risk life and limb to ensure the safety of my pets....which are classified in NJ as "property."  Whether or not she put herself in harms way by going home does not change the fact that she had the right to do so.  It's her property, its her "self"...she has the right to protect either.

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.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

^^^^^ this

 

It truly is up to the individual the extent they are willing to go.

 

By some emotion displayed here she should have moved to a different residence after the first burglary.

 

Her choice to stand her ground. Might not be your choice.

 

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.

[Zeke 5,504]

You were not there. You may do different. She did make her choice. She will have to deal with it.

[djg0770 481]

TLDR

 

 

 

What I and some others are saying is that, she made a mistake by entering her home and searching it,

 

You mean entering the home that SHE owns right?  She should not have entered her home.  Ok.   So now we have no right to our own property.  Cool.  Kelo vs New London I guess.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

AND WE'RE ON PAGE 7 OF MY STOMACH CHURNS............

 

And we're getting complemented for bringing-up "points" which essentially say almost what everybody here is saying:  It's her house and she had the right to respond to the activity there.

 

And now it all boils-down to you know, FEELINs', cause I'm more moral than you are.

 

Where is a civics test to get into this forum?  And while I'm at it, everybody should show your NJFID (sans address and SBI #) to be able to post here.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

"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.