+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Home defense (/showthread.php?tid=5422)
RE: Home defense - Guest - 05-15-2009
If you are a sneak thief, burglar, rapist, or some other low life scum and intrude within my protected space with intent to do me or mine harm in any way you will loose.
There are always cases that have questionable circumstances of excessive force and this may be one of them. What I’m starting to see here is all of the focus is on the shooter and nothing on the so called victim. Did the victim have a record of violence and was this person potentially a dangerous person? Many answers have to be addressed before I make a statement.
If nothing else comes of this one thing is for sure and that is there are many who have protection and are not afraid to use it. So to all low life, let this be an example if you have intentions of ill will. Some of us will use force to protect our own.
The Lack
RE: Home defense - lquade - 05-15-2009
the shooter was the victim. the shooter was the homeowner trying to enjoy the quiet enjoyment of his property. the perp had prior criminal records who was up to no good. i feel sorry for the victim and not the criminal on the slab....
RE: Home defense - DanielP - 05-15-2009
The article states that the intruder was on his property, not in his home. That makes all the difference here. If the intruder was in his home, then deadly force is permissable IMO. If the intruder was not in his home, but merely on his property, then the shooter better have felt personally threatened to shoot him.
Dan
RE: Home defense - Samdooby - 05-15-2009
Why not shoot him the leg and blow his leg off...
That way he has to live w/ a prosthetic adn always think about what happened...
RE: Home defense - centipede - 05-15-2009
I support the many pro-shooter points above.
Until we have all the facts, including how dark it was, night-vision equipment if any, pellet size, deepness of penetration, barrel length, bore, body location, blood trail if any, what parts of the body were hit etc., we shouldn't rule out the possibility that the criminal's death by shotgun at night could have been the result of a close encounter. In addition, "at least" two shots fired COULD mean "just" two shots fired from a double-barrel, both of which could be squeezed off in rapid succession.
We do not know if the criminal was there just to steal. Nor do we know if there was an exchange of words, terroristic threatening, or if there were any gestures or hand movements or running charge by the criminal towards the non-criminal citizen.
I also find it hard to accept the notion that any self-respecting criminal wouldn't carry some type of weapon.
Since the non-criminal citizen is out on bail, we should assume the cops have at least some information in favor of a justifiable homicide. I'm projecting a bit here, but if 2 empty shells were recovered at the scene, it can be a strong indicator of the number of shots fired, and if 2 spent shells did turn up, it would burn my butt that the cops didn't say "it appears" that 2 shots were fired instead of "at least" 2 shots were fired. Typical cop mealy-mouth weasel words.
RE: Home defense - Rob Tucker - 05-15-2009
Actually you don't know much of anything and are referring to the deceased as a "criminal" without knowing what the heck you're talking about.
I recall some trick or Treaters being blown away in Kentucky or some such. Did you assume they were criminals too?
Let the police do their job. Unfounded opinions and speculations are of zero benefit.
Punaweb moderator
RE: Home defense - centipede - 05-15-2009
Rob, I called "the deceased" a CRIMINAL because, as stated by the cops, he "had a lengthy criminal record, including five felony burglary convictions, two convictions for felony theft and one conviction for third-degree sex assault". With all my heart, I do not believe this CRIMINAL was out at night trick or treating, selling girl scout cookies, or handing out leaflets for the Jehova Witnesses.
RE: Home defense - Rob Tucker - 05-15-2009
Opps. Sorry. My bad. Obviously he should have been executed.
RE: Home defense - Dan De Soto - 05-15-2009
In my opinion: A marijuana farmer needs to take extra precautions to warn people of his intent to use deadly force and dissuade tresspassing because on the big island marijuana is like honey to flies and trapping humans is not regulated by the DLNR.
In general if somone has firearms and is ready to use them they should post signs i.e; no tresspasing, tresspassors will be shot, etc and they should also fence their property. Main thing is the tresspassor should absolutely know deadly force will be used so they can proceed at their own risk and the intruder should accept that risk by crossing a known boundary like a fence or doorway. For example: Panaewa zoo's tiger display; most everyone knows to not climb the fence...
I assume this is murder at this point. Maybe he will only get charged with manslaughter but should be found guilty if he didn't take some of the above precautions.
RE: Home defense - Bob Orts - 05-15-2009
It's 2 am in the morning. A man is driving his pregnant wife to the hospital due to severe pains. His engine dies. He gets out of his car and walks to a driveway. He starts walking up the driveway to ask if it's possible to call an ambulance. He hears his wife screaming turns around and starts running back towards her. He gets shot in the back by the homeowner and dies.
Should it matter if it turns out he had a criminal record unknown to the shooter?
What if the victim was White and a priest?
By the way, you don't have to answer - I Know the answers!