Armed citizen thwarts home invasion robbery

I do not believe that killing was over property. It was an armed home invasion.

And you think this is going to convince me that it's better to kill someone than to lose pocket change?

The death penalty doesn't deter murders. Texas has the most guns per capita of any state > And then get out to do it again. Of course, despite any infractions

No -- but maybe I missed something. The only criminal that killed anybody in this exchange was the guy who shot someone to protect his property. What criminal that killed someone were you referring to?

Mak>

Yeah, like the 16 year old kid that died in Florida last year after being put up to ringing someone's doorbell and playing "ding dong ditch". He was mildly retarded.

The homeowner shot first. And killed the kid. The kid was no threat. It was halloween.

I guess you'd have d> Hand guns are nice , shotguns better in home defense. When in home > shoot

You missed my point. If a criminal comes into a house that is occupied, they _know_ that the occupant might hurt them. THey have already decided to take that risk and prepare themselves. As such, they are a credible and real threat to the honest citizen whose safety they are threatening by their uninvited presence.

It's not about property. As many times as you say it is, it doesn't change the fact that a criminal is a dangerous person, and when they're breaking into a house, they're creating a credible threat.

The value of the lives protected (the old man and his wife) is higher than the value of the criminal who died. Society has been improved.

Who said anything about pocket change, Mike? The criminal broke into a house and was a threat to the occupants.

Cite, please. (Translation: I think you're wrong/lying, please show me where you got this information so I can show you how you're misreading it)

My. God. You people need to get updated talking points from your handlers.

Yeah, Clinton went on and on about this "kid", "last year", when he was president. Seems that his idea of a good time was to go up to houses, shout incomprehensibly at the homeowner, and then take a picture of their reaction. The homeowner in question, in the early hours of the morning, didn't see this as funny, and saw it as a threat. Ordered your poster-child to leave, said person went around the house to the garage door and attempted entry there.

Yeah, real smart, eh?

You're either not real critical about validating your sources, or you're intentionally lying. Which is it, please?

plonk

What do you know about morals? What makes you think all they wanted to do was steal stuff? Shoot first, and let God sort them out!

Are you trolling, or are you really that stupid?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Were people murdered before guns were invented?

Your information is incorrect. There are only a few jurisdictions that require one to retreat from criminal threat.

Why is it reprehensible? My property cost me some portion of my life's time to acquire. Stealing it is stealing a portion of my life. Moreover, how can anyone be sure someone breaking down the door or otherwise entering a home violently is not a threat to one's life or health?

People will defend their lives, families, and property as naturally as gravity makes things fall down. Entering someone's home uninvited and violently is, or should be, no less dangerous than jumping from the fortieth floor of a building with no parachute. It's nothing personal, just another way Nature culls the herd.

I don't know: I guess the criminal has to make that decision. He decides to steal something from an occupied home, even though it could cost his life. Apparently whatever he intends to steal is, potentially, worth his life, to him.

All "they" have to do is enter my home acting in a threatening manner. That stands a non-zero chance of being a fatal miscalculation. Garden gnomes they can take. Violently entering an occupied home, whether to steal or hurt or kill, on the other hand, _should_ be an action that endangers a criminal's life.

Agreed.

Hmmm, do automobiles kill people? or is it the drivers? If so, how come you license people to drive autos, but not to own & use guns?

Because the odds of getting killed by an auto is MUCH higher than getting killed by a gun. BTW, many people have permits to carry guns, and many more are properly trained to do so.

Do you know anybody that has been seriously hurt or killed in an auto accident? How about a gun accident?