Then I'm glad I live in the U.S. You break into my house with the intent of committing a crime therein, you have forfeited your life to my ability to take it. And I have that ability.
Man kills three suspected burglars with AR-15 rifle
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
When you scare the begeesus out of someone in their own home, you really can't cry foul if he shoots you dead before he calms down. You triggered the reaction.
Here is the law in Canada. 1. I spot three possible thugs trying to enter my home.
2. I go to my gun cabinet, which may not be conveniently located nearby and retrive my firearm.
3. I then go the where the ammunition is stored and load the firearm.
4. Now I am ready to confront the thugs.
Or I I just phone the police and get the hell out of the way.
This is what happens in Canada:
‘I’m glad he shot him’: Newfoundland man up on murder charges for shooting home invader
‘I’m glad he shot him’: Newfoundland man up on murder charges for shooting home invader | National Post
Northern Alberta homeowner charged after shooting intruder
Northern Alberta homeowner charged after shooting intruder | 630 CHED - Edmonton Breaking News, Traffic, Weather and Sports Radio Station
The homeowner, Dave Sietsma, who is 29, has been charged with discharging a weapon with intent, and two counts of possession of a weapon and ammunition while prohibited.
Oh My Gawd... your 2 examples are guys that are prohibited from possessing firearms..... really? Is this the best you can do?
No I can always do better.
Man who killed intruder likely in clear, expert says - The Globe and Mail
Too bad more homeowners don't have handguns. One hand points the gun at the criminal the othe calls 911. Hunting rifles require 2 hands.
You missed pleading for your life part... the begging not to be shot part... the part where you scream... the part where you pray... the part where you beg them not to hurt your family... the part where you get slapped... the part where you get punched...the part where you watch a family member get slapped or punched... the part where you tell them you don't want to die...etc.
Do the Stand your Ground Laws require the homeowner to fire a warning shot?
If not i believe that this would be a better control than say declaring yourself verbally to the intruders.
Firing a warning shot could help the homeowner gauge the level of threat, and perhaps give intruders the chance to surrender, and or flee. The deaths in the article are way too lopsided and i don't agree with the law the same as i don't agree with women getting stoned in Iran for being a rape victim.
In this example a warning shot would have probably saved the lives of the intruders because unless your a religious zealot with a box cutter you aren't going to make a move on someone in their own house in the dark with just a knife. You would more than likely be frightened and scream, "stop"!!!
Now there would be exceptions, like you were already locked in mortal combat and you grabbed your gun to fire the first shot, etc and there should be exceptions.
The law, if no warning shot is required just exemplifies the fastest gunslinger in the west mentality. That needs to change because that does not encourage competent gun handling and management techniques.
If not i believe that this would be a better control than say declaring yourself verbally to the intruders.
Firing a warning shot could help the homeowner gauge the level of threat, and perhaps give intruders the chance to surrender, and or flee. The deaths in the article are way too lopsided and i don't agree with the law the same as i don't agree with women getting stoned in Iran for being a rape victim.
In this example a warning shot would have probably saved the lives of the intruders because unless your a religious zealot with a box cutter you aren't going to make a move on someone in their own house in the dark with just a knife. You would more than likely be frightened and scream, "stop"!!!
Now there would be exceptions, like you were already locked in mortal combat and you grabbed your gun to fire the first shot, etc and there should be exceptions.
The law, if no warning shot is required just exemplifies the fastest gunslinger in the west mentality. That needs to change because that does not encourage competent gun handling and management techniques.
No.
---
I think that you are missing the point of all this, Johnny. What do I owe to someone who breaks into my home? Am I expected to risk my own life in the hope that an absolute stranger will not harm me?
I say, "Stop. I have a gun!" Is it reasonable to expect that he will surrender to me, hands in the air?
But wait, is someone else there? Does he have one or more accomplices? I have given away my location to them. Are they armed? Will they attack me?
---
Someone, or some people, have entered your house without asking, or informing you of their presence. Why are they there? Is it a simple burglary, or something else? Do they wish to do you harm?
Burglars know that it is against the law to break into someone's house, but they do it anyway. Some carry weapons. Some don't. Some are completely sober. Others are under the influence of an intoxicating substance. Some are gentle souls. Others are violent or mentally unstable.
What kind of burglar is in your house tonight? Are you obligated to die for them?
Engagements happen quickly. Even trained people cannot always react the way that they have been trained. With speed comes confusion. And there are many other contributing factors. How many are there? Can they see me, or I them? Is it dark? Is it noisy? Are other innocent people in the house?
That is why the law is the way it is. You have no legal obligation to die for a stranger. You're not Jesus.
Last edited:
And that is why innocent people die in Canada. Because we have stupid laws that protect criminals and nothing to protect law abiding taxpayers. Perpetuated by stupid people.
That would mean getting involved.
It was primarily the three warning shots Ian Thompson fired that started his troubles, basically careless discharge of a firearm. If he were shooting at a target and even missed, (as many police officers do as well) it would prove he at least knew it was the threat he was shooting at. As well; have you ever discharged a firearm indoors without the benefit of hearing protection? You will be totally deaf for at least ten seconds, and partially for much longer, enough time for me to empty two 7 round .45 mags. on target. Most self defense instructors allow for warning shots, provided they are delivered to the chest area of the most imminent threat, and you don't want to be deaf or blinded by muzzle flash at that critical time.
The toughest charge for Mr. Thompson was the unsafe storage one in which the prosecution embarked on a borderline malicious prosecution, testing the judge's patience There is no requirement to have your firearms under lock and key while you are with them, otherwise you could never use them.
You need to read the articles you post. From the Newfoundland article:
My emphasis
This exactly parallels the situation under discussion.....except there were three assailants, and they were armed with a knife and brass knuckles.......and they were stupid enough to confront a man armed with an AR 15.
Never fire warning shots.
And I was a firearms combat instructor.
1. They deafen you
2. They blind you (at night)
3. They indicate you were not really threatened (as you did not shoot the threat)
4. They expend rounds you might need in any ensuing fight.
5. They increase the chances of a bullet winding up where it is not supposed to be.
Never Never
Never.
Sadly, this is a dog chasing its tail sort of post. It should have ended after a few posts, but grew legs.
Some, no matter what the law says, will insist that it should be amended. They cannot accept that making a wrong decision can result in deadly consequences.
The law is rarely a help when you are scared, alone and in danger of losing your life. You do what you have to do to save yourself.
Some, no matter what the law says, will insist that it should be amended. They cannot accept that making a wrong decision can result in deadly consequences.
The law is rarely a help when you are scared, alone and in danger of losing your life. You do what you have to do to save yourself.
And then you face twelve jurors deciding from their nice, safe, comfortably jury box surrounded by armed bailiffs and sheriff's deputies whether what you did when you were cold, scared, and alone was "reasonable."
It's quite possible the shooter is a trigger-happy lunatic. But that's the lesson learned isn't it? Know your audience before you illegally break into somebody's home armed with weapons.
I doubt that the guy was a trigger happy lunatic. I am sure that if the police had evidence of it, or any other wrongdoing, the DA would not have decided so quickly.
When events of this nature happen, why is it that people unconnected with the event, and not in receipt of any official information, feel a need to impugn the defender? Why is it that they do not trust the police, the lawyers, the forensics lab, or even eyewitness accounts, but feel their own, uninformed theories correctly reflect what happened?
The DA's office is not charging the guy. Therefore, no evidence was found which would suggest that he acted irresponsibly or illegally. That's it. Bury the perps and move on.
When events of this nature happen, why is it that people unconnected with the event, and not in receipt of any official information, feel a need to impugn the defender? Why is it that they do not trust the police, the lawyers, the forensics lab, or even eyewitness accounts, but feel their own, uninformed theories correctly reflect what happened?
The DA's office is not charging the guy. Therefore, no evidence was found which would suggest that he acted irresponsibly or illegally. That's it. Bury the perps and move on.
I have never said that you don't have the right to defend yourself. I came up with some ideas, mind you they werent great but it shows im trying...
Here's another idea if its not already in place, have everyone who owns firearms to place on their properties "You will be shot if you attempt, ...".
Something to dissuade the would-be-robbers. Was there a sign in his front yard that said that? If there wasn't then in my opinion signs like that should be a legal requirement for every gun owner to place in front of their house. Have every house on the block with a sign that says that, not to remind people about how dangerous we are put to remind people that this is how far the homeowner will go regardless if there is another route to defend yourself.
I'm not being a bleeding heart liberal here i'm of the mindset that if people die even if it was their fault, what can we do as a society to mitigate this from happening further.
In Florida they are saying since 2005 that "Stand your ground laws" have led to more homicides. My concern is legitimate
Id say the lunatics make up about 5% of gun owners if i had to guestimate. While on the other hand, a lot of owners get really worked up if you even suggest a small change to the law. I'm sure these people though have never questioned a law before in their lives though, so theres that also.
I talked with the old man about this issue, and he is on your guys side.
And he told me a story. When i was like 1yrs old it was my dad and me in the house and 7 people tried breaking in. He took out his magnum (handguns were legal back then), snuck up behind the last guy and held the gun to his head. He took the guys wallet for identification and basically scared the kids off. No deaths.
He feels good about that outcome
You know what i said,
Dad no one is hardcore you like you under pressure and we cant expect other gun owners to act like you, but can we not as a people figure something out to at least bring down the kill count while keeping the homeowner safe?
He just said, it would be nice but you have a lot of thinking to do then.
Here's another idea if its not already in place, have everyone who owns firearms to place on their properties "You will be shot if you attempt, ...".
Something to dissuade the would-be-robbers. Was there a sign in his front yard that said that? If there wasn't then in my opinion signs like that should be a legal requirement for every gun owner to place in front of their house. Have every house on the block with a sign that says that, not to remind people about how dangerous we are put to remind people that this is how far the homeowner will go regardless if there is another route to defend yourself.
I'm not being a bleeding heart liberal here i'm of the mindset that if people die even if it was their fault, what can we do as a society to mitigate this from happening further.
In Florida they are saying since 2005 that "Stand your ground laws" have led to more homicides. My concern is legitimate
Id say the lunatics make up about 5% of gun owners if i had to guestimate. While on the other hand, a lot of owners get really worked up if you even suggest a small change to the law. I'm sure these people though have never questioned a law before in their lives though, so theres that also.
I talked with the old man about this issue, and he is on your guys side.
And he told me a story. When i was like 1yrs old it was my dad and me in the house and 7 people tried breaking in. He took out his magnum (handguns were legal back then), snuck up behind the last guy and held the gun to his head. He took the guys wallet for identification and basically scared the kids off. No deaths.
He feels good about that outcome
You know what i said,
Dad no one is hardcore you like you under pressure and we cant expect other gun owners to act like you, but can we not as a people figure something out to at least bring down the kill count while keeping the homeowner safe?
He just said, it would be nice but you have a lot of thinking to do then.
Last edited: