Man kills three suspected burglars with AR-15 rifle
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
They broke into his house. How much more do you need.
Some jurisdictions have good criminal laws. Unlike the catch and release program we have in Canada.
ILM doesn't get the same media attention as BLM.
They won't make that mistake twice.
This is a perfect example of how justice should work. You should be happy to have a neighbour like MR.Peters since he would probably protect your worthless azz the same as he would his own family.
That is because we have stupid laws in Canada.
They entered his house without permission, in pursuit of nefarious aims.
English Common Law: Open season.
There is no requirement, morally or legally, to retreat from evil-doers. Yes, Virginia, that includes Canada. You must be "...in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm", but once that prerequisite is met, lethal force is absolutely allowed. Being threatened with a knife counts.
In Canada, the homeowner would be charged with "unsafe storage", assuming he shot all three inside the house..........a frivolous charge, which would cost him tens of thousands of dollars to beat. Persecution by prosecution.
Now, while I may have acted differently (I've been in the position to legally shoot a criminal threatening me, and I did not shoot) I refuse to sanction second-guessing the actions of a man against armed intruders inside his house.
I wouldn't second guess either.
To the rest: Everyone on the Internets is a lawyer. The DA's office will make the call. The majority of you can relax until that happens. Those who object can post about your phone call to that DA and tell us what they said when you told them, "I am acrimonious!"
Oh wait. It's the Internets.
Regardless, those three will not make that mistake again. Darwin wins.
To the rest: Everyone on the Internets is a lawyer. The DA's office will make the call. The majority of you can relax until that happens. Those who object can post about your phone call to that DA and tell us what they said when you told them, "I am acrimonious!"
Oh wait. It's the Internets.
Regardless, those three will not make that mistake again. Darwin wins.
Last edited:
Im second guessing him. After he shot the first person it was shoot to thrill after that.
Im not saying he didnt have a right to protect himself and his property but the threat was obviously minimal after the first death. This kid is not competent in the use of a firearm and a little boy who is probably a real coward without his gun
The law is on his side. The law is on Don Meridiths side. But in the end your a gun owner and if shooting is your only move then you cannot prove to me you are competent in using firearms
Im not saying he didnt have a right to protect himself and his property but the threat was obviously minimal after the first death. This kid is not competent in the use of a firearm and a little boy who is probably a real coward without his gun
The law is on his side. The law is on Don Meridiths side. But in the end your a gun owner and if shooting is your only move then you cannot prove to me you are competent in using firearms
Ive had guns pulled on mefrom drug deals gone bad, ive had someone try to attack me with a knife, heck i have even had selfsames cousin from Iraq attack me withan AK47in Iraq, and ontop of that i come from a family that owns more guns than most of my cities residents combined.
Am i an expect? No, Am i an internet lawyer? No. What iam is someone who doesnt agreewith the course of actions.
What if they pleaded? We will never know. Stand your ground sjpuld not be a carte blache. If you think a good shot is what makes a competent operator then your wrong
Does it matter? There was no shoot out this kid would have had to hunt the last two. He would have had to search them out. He searched them out killed them and then barricaded himself after the fact. These are bot the actions of someone who is in distress
These three little punks broke into a man's home with the intent to at least steal his stuff, armed sufficiently to kill or seriously maim anyone they might encounter. THe homeowner rightfully defended his turf. All three will never re offended and it never cost the taxpayer a dime. Nuff said.
By only holding the homeowner accountable to the deaths of only 2 not the whole 3? Thats an example of me giving the homeowner a break
The law needs to be rewritten.
The only information I could find was that the homeowner's son heard noises and that the three were breaking in through the back door.If you know something that the investigating officers don't you should tell them.
The police and the DA will do their jobs. Never assume. Don't play the 'what if' game.
The police and the DA will do their jobs. Never assume. Don't play the 'what if' game.
He wont be charged we know this.
You cannot convince me that after shooting the first dead that he was in danger still.
The sequence of deaths does not convince me he was in a continued state of danger.
Nope. 2 lives were wasted because the law gives a carte de blanche. The man should make the firearm, the firearm doesnt make the man.
A's long as he didn't shoot any of them in the back he had a perfect right to eliminate the danger.