Heowner take out 1 of 2 burglers

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Wow, this thread took an interesting turn... and as far as I'm concerned, it's a discussion that actually speaks well of this community. Don't forget, debating the morality of the term "a good shoot" is something that only decent, responsible gun owners would even do! The Bloods, the Crips, the Pagans, ordinary unaffiliated street thugs, etc. --- do you think these folks are sitting around debating the morality of shooting and wondering whether or not they'll suffer psychological trauma?  HA!

Even Handyman and Ray Ray, who've perhaps spoken in the most bold, uncompromising terms... have clearly not demonstrated "bloodlust" IMO. Far from it!!!! They have spoken fiercely about "protecting" their families and that is a an absolute moral high ground in my mind. Now, I may personally think they're in for a bit of a surprise, should they ever have to take such action, in terms of them sleeping soundly afterwards... but hey, everyone's wired differently too. We can only guess how anyone will react. Either way, I still respect their protective stance...as I'm sure their families do! 

I've done much reading and thinking lately on self-defense. (I guess bringing a gun into the house has made me reflective. And my thinking is certainly evolving). I'm not sure where the law falls on this issue... but unless there's one of those rare understandable reasons for a break-in (escaping a rabid animal or an approaching tornado, ya know, Hollywood stuff, LOL)... does it really matter WHY the person has broken into your house (merely to steal from you -vs- to do harm to you)? Don't robberies often escalate into violence? And should it matter if they're not armed? They can still hurt/kill you with their bare hands, right?

Maybe this is the perspective of a 5'4" woman, but as I've learned how rapidly a person can close a short distance on foot, for example, or how easy it is for the average male intruder to overpower the average woman... I am left wondering: should it matter to me if his hands are in the silverware drawer (because can't they be around my throat pretty damn fast)?.. or he doesn't appear to have a gun (maybe it's hidden in his waistband)?... Or if he says, "just give me the cash and jewelry and I'll leave?" (What if he's lying)?

Personally, I am a vigilant door locker and always have been. So, if someone has entered my house (broken in or pushed their way in), I'm now thinking they have already crossed some invisible "red line" simply by being there. And if this person sees me, unless he's backing away or hauling ass out the door, isn't the inherent threat so great that it's a "justified" shooting? (And before anyone second-guesses me, if I ever was in that situation, if at all possible, I would escape or retreat until I could retreat no more. No question about that. I'm not wired to be an aggressor. Shooting would be a last, terrible option).

Also, how does the law factor in a physical power imbalance? e.g., male/female, bigger/smaller, aged/youthful... or in the case that started this thread, multiple intruders/1 homeowner? Are those issues decided by prosecutors and, if indicted, then by a jury of your peers - based on how a "reasonable person" would react? (I haven't really dug into legalities yet in my reading).

Sorry for the long post... but interesting stuff... and, as you know, I'm long-winded! 

[Zeke 5,504]

5 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Wow, this thread took an interesting turn... and as far as I'm concerned, it's a discussion that actually speaks well of this community. Don't forget, debating the morality of the term "a good shoot" is something that only decent, responsible gun owners would even do! The Bloods, the Crips, the Pagans, ordinary unaffiliated street thugs, etc. --- do you think these folks are sitting around debating the morality of shooting and wondering whether or not they'll suffer psychological trauma?  HA!

Even Handyman and Ray Ray, who've perhaps spoken in the most bold, uncompromising terms... have clearly not demonstrated "bloodlust" IMO. Far from it!!!! They have spoken fiercely about "protecting" their families and that is a an absolute moral high ground in my mind. Now, I may personally think they're in for a bit of a surprise, should they ever have to take such action, in terms of them sleeping soundly afterwards... but hey, everyone's wired differently too. We can only guess how anyone will react. Either way, I still respect their protective stance...as I'm sure their families do! 

I've done much reading and thinking lately on self-defense. (I guess bringing a gun into the house has made me reflective. And my thinking is certainly evolving). I'm not sure where the law falls on this issue... but unless there's one of those rare understandable reasons for a break-in (escaping a rabid animal or an approaching tornado, ya know, Hollywood stuff, LOL)... does it really matter WHY the person has broken into your house (merely to steal from you -vs- to do harm to you)? Don't robberies often escalate into violence? And should it matter if they're not armed? They can still hurt/kill you with their bare hands, right?

Maybe this is the perspective of a 5'4" woman, but as I've learned how rapidly a person can close a short distance on foot, for example, or how easy it is for the average male intruder to overpower the average woman... I am left wondering: should it matter to me if his hands are in the silverware drawer (because can't they be around my throat pretty damn fast)?.. or he doesn't appear to have a gun (maybe it's hidden in his waistband)?... Or if he says, "just give me the cash and jewelry and I'll leave?" (What if he's lying)?

Personally, I am a vigilant door locker and always have been. So, if someone has entered my house (broken in or pushed their way in), I'm now thinking they have already crossed some invisible "red line" simply by being there. And if this person sees me, unless he's backing away or hauling ass out the door, isn't the inherent threat so great that it's a "justified" shooting? (And before anyone second-guesses me, if I ever was in that situation, if at all possible, I would escape or retreat until I could retreat no more. No question about that. I'm not wired to be an aggressor. Shooting would be a last, terrible option).

Also, how does the law factor in a physical power imbalance? e.g., male/female, bigger/smaller, aged/youthful... or in the case that started this thread, multiple intruders/1 homeowner? Are those issues decided by prosecutors and, if indicted, then by a jury of your peers - based on how a "reasonable person" would react? (I haven't really dug into legalities yet in my reading).

Sorry for the long post... but interesting stuff... and, as you know, I'm long-winded! 

Remorse is what separates the good and the bad. Not the act. In this conversation.

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

22 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Wow, this thread took an interesting turn... and as far as I'm concerned, it's a discussion that actually speaks well of this community. Don't forget, debating the morality of the term "a good shoot" is something that only decent, responsible gun owners would even do! The Bloods, the Crips, the Pagans, ordinary unaffiliated street thugs, etc. --- do you think these folks are sitting around debating the morality of shooting and wondering whether or not they'll suffer psychological trauma?  HA!

Even Handyman and Ray Ray, who've perhaps spoken in the most bold, uncompromising terms... have clearly not demonstrated "bloodlust" IMO. Far from it!!!! They have spoken fiercely about "protecting" their families and that is a an absolute moral high ground in my mind. Now, I may personally think they're in for a bit of a surprise, should they ever have to take such action, in terms of them sleeping soundly afterwards... but hey, everyone's wired differently too. We can only guess how anyone will react. Either way, I still respect their protective stance...as I'm sure their families do! 

I've done much reading and thinking lately on self-defense. (I guess bringing a gun into the house has made me reflective. And my thinking is certainly evolving). I'm not sure where the law falls on this issue... but unless there's one of those rare understandable reasons for a break-in (escaping a rabid animal or an approaching tornado, ya know, Hollywood stuff, LOL)... does it really matter WHY the person has broken into your house (merely to steal from you -vs- to do harm to you)? Don't robberies often escalate into violence? And should it matter if they're not armed? They can still hurt/kill you with their bare hands, right?

Maybe this is the perspective of a 5'4" woman, but as I've learned how rapidly a person can close a short distance on foot, for example, or how easy it is for the average male intruder to overpower the average woman... I am left wondering: should it matter to me if his hands are in the silverware drawer (because can't they be around my throat pretty damn fast)?.. or he doesn't appear to have a gun (maybe it's hidden in his waistband)?... Or if he says, "just give me the cash and jewelry and I'll leave?" (What if he's lying)?

Personally, I am a vigilant door locker and always have been. So, if someone has entered my house (broken in or pushed their way in), I'm now thinking they have already crossed some invisible "red line" simply by being there. And if this person sees me, unless he's backing away or hauling ass out the door, isn't the inherent threat so great that it's a "justified" shooting? (And before anyone second-guesses me, if I ever was in that situation, if at all possible, I would escape or retreat until I could retreat no more. No question about that. I'm not wired to be an aggressor. Shooting would be a last, terrible option).

Also, how does the law factor in a physical power imbalance? e.g., male/female, bigger/smaller, aged/youthful... or in the case that started this thread, multiple intruders/1 homeowner? Are those issues decided by prosecutors and, if indicted, then by a jury of your peers - based on how a "reasonable person" would react? (I haven't really dug into legalities yet in my reading).

Sorry for the long post... but interesting stuff... and, as you know, I'm long-winded! 

Due to Mrs. Peel's awesome insight, I've gone back and slightly edited my last post. You are absolutely right, an intruder is absolutely capable of killing you bare handed. 

If someone has broken into your home, armed or not, one has to assume they are there to do you harm. 

[Handyman 5,682]

I recall seeing a video of a home invasion in a wealthy town (Millburn maybe?) where some big dude from Newark busted into a house and beat a woman in front of her toddler. It reminds of a quote from someone much wiser and more experienced than me in these matters:

 

 

Resisting evil is a moral imperative.

[Zeke 5,504]

1 minute ago, Handyman said:

I recall seeing a video of a home invasion in a wealthy town (Millburn maybe?) where some big dude from Newark busted into a house and beat a woman in front of her toddler. It reminds of a quote form someone much wiser and more experienced than me in these matters:

 

Resisting evil is a moral imperative.

Again 

Handy I like you, I rilly do, well not the way you want me to like you...

lets see if I can rephrase this so you'll understand:

 

You are on fire! Do you want the people around you to possess your gasoline or your water? In the odd chance they'd do sumtin for ya?

Im on fire! I want the people around me to possess your water! In the odd chance they'd do sumtin for me.

This thread is forever in the interwebs of esteemed Gore, it's public.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

5 minutes ago, Handyman said:

I recall seeing a video of a home invasion in a wealthy town (Millburn maybe?) where some big dude from Newark busted into a house and beat a woman in front of her toddler. 

Yeah, I think that was Millburn... within the last year or 2, right? That was appalling! He was knocking and dragging her around the room like a ragdoll. She's lucky that she and her child are even alive.

I've always thought that was a drawback to those wealthy little towns located closely to tough, high-crime areas (like Newark, Paterson, Irvington, etc.)... because every once in awhile this kind of thing happens to them... some evil jerk just pops up out of nowhere and rains down hell on someone. 

[Smokin .50 1,907]

5 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Yeah, I think that was Millburn... within the last year or 2, right? That was appalling! He was knocking and dragging her around the room like a ragdoll. She's lucky that she and her child are even alive.

I've always thought that was a drawback to those wealthy little towns located closely to tough, high-crime areas (like Newark, Paterson, Irvington, etc.)... because every once in awhile this kind of thing happens to them... some evil jerk just pops up out of nowhere and rains down hell on someone. 

It was Millburn.  CCTV from the victim's camera recorded it all.  Rag doll is accurate.  She's traumatized for life.  Perp was tried & convicted, got somewhere between 20-30 years.  Story went national & sales of womens holsters they can wear around the house (girdle & thigh models especially) doubled overnight.  All of a sudden a pistol in your purse (instead of on your person) wasn't good enough!

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot 358]

Article today about the law in this. Just make sure you ask the intruder to kindly leave beforehand.

http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/local/attorneys-new-jersey-law-on-defending-self-in-your-home/article_9c5afd72-6662-11e7-934e-1f040de5ea24.html?hp=mid-threestories

Meanwhile, GoFundMe page for decedent has already exceeded its goal!

https://www.gofundme.com/jimmy-ds-funeral-legal-services

 

[voyager9 3,434]

2 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

 it really matter WHY the person has broken into your house (merely to steal from you -vs- to do harm to you)? Don't robberies often escalate into violence? And should it matter if they're not armed? They can still hurt/kill you with their bare hands, right?

This.  You shouldn't have to second guess any defensive action you must take in the moment. If you delay you could die.  The law should (and usually is) on your side when something happens in your house. That's by castle doctrine is so important. 

[voyager9 3,434]

16 minutes ago, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:

Article today about the law in this. Just make sure you ask the intruder to kindly leave beforehand.

http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/local/attorneys-new-jersey-law-on-defending-self-in-your-home/article_9c5afd72-6662-11e7-934e-1f040de5ea24.html?hp=mid-threestories

Meanwhile, GoFundMe page for decedent has already exceeded its goal!

https://www.gofundme.com/jimmy-ds-funeral-legal-services

 

According to the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, the use of force is appropriate only when a request to leave the property would be useless or dangerous, or if such a request is rejected. And the use of deadly force is justifiable only if there is reason to believe the intruder intends to harm someone in the home. 

if they're in my home the. I assume asking them to leave would be useless. Otherwise they wouldn't have entered in the first place. And I assume they intend harm unless I see immediate proof to the contrary (they run).  

[Zeke 5,504]

8 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

This.  You shouldn't have to second guess any defensive action you must take in the moment. If you delay you could die.  The law should (and usually is) on your side when something happens in your house. That's by castle doctrine is so important. 

You won't have time

[voyager9 3,434]

3 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

 

 

if they're in my home the. I assume asking them to leave would be useless. Otherwise they wouldn't have entered in the first place. And I assume they intend harm unless I see immediate proof to the contrary (they run).  

Note the example in the article about kids breaking into your cellar to steal soda is such a straw man.  Especially knowing how the term "kids" can be manipulated these days. 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

if they're in my home the. I assume asking them to leave would be useless. Otherwise they wouldn't have entered in the first place. And I assume they intend harm unless I see immediate proof to the contrary (they run).  

 

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

You won't have time

You see, this feedback (above) is GOOD. I have to develop a harder attitude. I know that. I'm asking questions now... but they need to develop into tough, uncompromising positions. Because, frankly, I believe that having a gun and being hesitant about it's use could be FAR WORSE than having no gun at all.

Because if the intruder isn't armed, a person who hesitates and is then overpowered has just inadvertently ARMED his or her attacker. What sense does THAT make? None.

[voyager9 3,434]

1 minute ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Because if the intruder isn't armed, a person who hesitates and is then overpowered has just inadvertently ARMED his or her attacker. What sense does THAT make? None.

Careful. That's the tract that anti-gun people use. You shouldn't have a gun because you'll just be overpowered and have it stolen from you.  Go use a rape whistle like a good sheep. 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Just now, voyager9 said:

Careful. That's the tract that anti-gun people use. You shouldn't have a gun because you'll just be overpowered and have it stolen from you.  Go use a rape whistle like a good sheep. 

I hear you, but I think you know where I'm going with that statement. The opposite direction: don't hesitate to save your own life.

[Zeke 5,504]

1 minute ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I hear you, but I think you know where I'm going with that statement. The opposite direction: don't hesitate to save your own life.

Peel, seconds will seem like minutes.

disclaimer: various physical incidents, and training with Citizens police academy. 

[voyager9 3,434]

3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I hear you, but I think you know where I'm going with that statement. The opposite direction: don't hesitate to save your own life.

Agree.  Nobody wants to shoot an "innocent" person.  Real Kids doing something stupid or the milkman or whatever. But the situation and ramifications of you hesitate are such that you have to err on the side of action. Worse case For you, it's better to act and be wrong then don't act quick enough and be wrong. 

[Zeke 5,504]

3 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Agree.  Nobody wants to shoot an "innocent" person.  Real Kids doing something stupid or the milkman or whatever. But the situation and ramifications of you hesitate are such that you have to err on the side of action. Worse case For you, it's better to act and be wrong then don't act quick enough and be wrong. 

Sage to a point. SA is paramount. Go/ no go. This is the training part. And this is now your life

[High Exposure 5,661]

From a criminal law view, you don't have to be correct in your assessment - as long as your reaction is reasonable to your peers. Don't get me wrong, it's better to be right in many different ways, but it isn't technically necessary. 

That doesn't mean you can make shoot/no-shoot decisions lightly and rely on the reasonableness standard.  It means if that metal shiny thing in his hand that you thought was a gun in the low light conditions your critical incident occurred in turns out to be a Coor's Light can, if your reaction was reasonable, your covered under the law.

Civilly, you're screwed if you are right. You're screwed harder if you are wrong.

But you're alive.

[Zeke 5,504]

Just now, High Exposure said:

From a criminal law view, you don't have to be correct in your assessment - as long as your reaction is reasonable to your peers. Don't get me wrong, it's better to be right in many different ways, but it isn't technically necessary. 

Civilly, you're screwed if you are right. You're screwed harder if you are wrong.

But you're alive.

Wouldn't you be screwed hardest if you're dead? Providing Handy Man was there...

[Handyman 5,682]

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

Again 

Handy I like you, I rilly do, well not the way you want me to like you...

Aww shucks Zeeker, I really like you, too. But if you break in my place I'm gonna shoot you. Then afterward I am going to skin you and include you in my woman suit.

 

I also don't much care about stuff being on the internet forever. If you met me in real life you'd recognize me. My doormat says "Welcome. Break in my place and I'll shoot you."

[Zeke 5,504]

8 minutes ago, Handyman said:

Aww shucks Zeeker, I really like you, too. But if you break in my place I'm gonna shoot you. Then afterward I am going to skin you and include you in my woman suit.

 

I also don't much care about stuff being on the internet forever. If you met me in real life you'd recognize me. My doormat says "Welcome. Break in my place and I'll shoot you."

That's not rilly the point. Now is it. Stop thinking about jus you. Start thinking bout everyone else that supports the 2a.

you got this! I know you do

[Ray Ray 3,566]

There are some really interesting posts in this thread.  Some really good reads.  But in the end it's all hogwash.  No offense.  The moment you you feel compasion for your adversary is the moment you lose.  

[Handyman 5,682]

Z-dog, if someone decides that some anonymous guy on the internet represents the thought process of all gun owners/2a community, they are so irretrievably moronic there is no hope for them.

People like this spend all their time looking not for the truth, but for evidence that supports the views they already hold. I'll leave it at that so as to not drive this thread to 1a Lounge.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

When one has made a decision to kill a person, even if it will be very difficult to succeed by advancing straight ahead, it will not do to think about doing it in a long, roundabout way. One's heart may slacken, he may miss his chance, and by and large there will be no success. The Way of the Samurai is one of immediacy, and it is best to dash in headlong. 

[Zeke 5,504]

7 hours ago, Handyman said:

Z-dog, if someone decides that some anonymous guy on the internet represents the thought process of all gun owners/2a community, they are so irretrievably moronic there is no hope for them.

People like this spend all their time looking not for the truth, but for evidence that supports the views they already hold. I'll leave it at that so as to not drive this thread to 1a Lounge.

Yep, they are out there 

[Old School 611]

10 hours ago, Ray Ray said:

There are some really interesting posts in this thread.  Some really good reads.  But in the end it's all hogwash.  No offense.  The moment you you feel compasion for your adversary is the moment you lose.  

We're in the same church Ray

[Ray Ray 3,566]

3 hours ago, Old School said:

We're in the same church Ray

Sadly, many here are not.

 

[silverado427 10,680]