[Gunnair]

ASLplease ASLplease:

agian you are making assumptions
and again i wont defend any of your outlandish claims about what i believe and dont believe

There's no assumptions made when you actually post what you believe for all to read.

[GreenTiger]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

He wasn't defending his home...he was defending a fucking quad or its gas. He exited his home then decided to "shoot in the direction" of the would be thieves.
Spare me, please.

He was defending his property on his property. Sucks he is getting charged

He's getting charged for careless use of a firearm for one. He didn't take deliberate aim and shoot one of the fuckers, he unloaded in the direction they took off in. They hadn't even managed to steal anything there ffs

And these are the kind of gun owners that people cheerlead?
I have no issues with self-defense, but being willing to shoot and potentially kill someone trying to steal "stuff" is almost incomprehensible to me. And to just blaze away in the "general direction" is TOTALLY indefensible!

And actually, he wasn't defending ANYTHING! They tried left empty handed BEFORE the gun was even drawn.

[fifeboy]

ASLplease ASLplease:

i think its typical liberal bullshit to claim that i know the intentions of someone that breaks into my castle.

Can't you read, the guy was not in someone's "castle" but in the yard. And they were leaving without anything!

ASLplease ASLplease:

I do not know if he is there to steal my piggy bank or he is there to cause my family harm.

Again, no one is arguing that you can't defend the security and life of your family. Just that you can't blast away because someone is running away.

ASLplease ASLplease:

When faced with a decision like 'should i shoot him', there is no debate, I will do what I feel I need to do.

And, assuming that you, the wonderous Mr. please, would never make a poor decision here, what about the stupid fool who lives next door to you and is having a fight with his wife and sees you coming onto his yard to retrieve the soccer ball your son kicked there by accident. Is it O.K. if he open up with the 12 bore because he thinks you are having at his rake?

ASLplease ASLplease:

A lot of you guys ought to mind your own business, stay the fuck out of my house, and raise your children to respect the property and rights of others.

Well, let's see.

1- people being shot for any reason, legit or not, in my country is my business.
2- I don't go to your house. God, I hope you don't have Mormons in your town,
3- I did raise my kids to respect the property and rights of others, thank you very much.

[GreenTiger]

The PC correct nonses of "lets see that they want before they do anything " can get you killed. They weren't there for a cup of sugar.

While you would be waiting for they to identify themselves and
making sure you are protecting the criminals rights. You and your family could be dead. It's a funny thing about criminals they might get nasty and unpleasant and might actually hurt you. You abviously never met a criminal.

People should have the right to defend them selves and their property.

I have a .45 Cal Auto from WWII it works real well, it's heavy
but it was designed and built to put krauts into Valhala in the
blink of the eye. If someone breaks into my home they may be
joining them or will visit the hospital.

A criminal may only be interested in property but they can change their mind and go after you. Who do you want bleeding you or someone in your family or them?

[andyt]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

The PC correct nonses of "lets see that they want before they do anything " can get you killed. They weren't there for a cup of sugar.

While you would be waiting for they to identify themselves and
making sure you are protecting the criminals rights. You and your family could be dead. It's a funny thing about criminals they might get nasty and unpleasant and might actually hurt you. You abviously never met a criminal.

People should have the right to defend them selves and their property.

I have a .45 Cal Auto from WWII it works real well, it's heavy
but it was designed and built to put krauts into Valhala in the
blink of the eye. If someone breaks into my home they may be
joining them or will visit the hospital.

A criminal may only be interested in property but they can change their mind and go after you. Who do you want bleeding you or someone in your family or them?

As people have pointed out, they were running away, no threat to anyone.

Are you seriously advocating shooting first and asking people what their business is on your property later? Why not just mount some .50 cals with motion detectors on them to blast away as soon as somebody steps into your yard. Just be sure to turn them off if you outside the house, or your kid's coming home from school.

[2Cdo]

Gunnair Gunnair:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

But, to repeat. If you think it's cool to shoot and or kill someone over material possessions, I gotta question your judgement.

But why should I just let thieves get away with stealing "things" that I worked hard for and paid for. It's attitudes like yours that criminals absolutely love.

Hold on here.

Are you suggesting holding the shooter to a degree of accountability is wrong?

This ain't Afghanistan, this is Canada. If this retard is going to defend his property with a gun, at the very least have a target to shoot at and not simply a general direction.

Furthermore, I'm amazed all the pro-gun crowd is suffering from yet another knee-jerk, fully erect, Pavlovian response here when the guy was clearly in the wrong by shooting at a fleeing suspect. It is illegal, full stop. All you responsible gun owners should be the ones howling for accountability of the shooter for using his weapon irresponsibly since responsible use of the weapon is the core point of your argument supporting the laxing of the gun laws.

Un-fuckin-believeable.

Holding the shooter accountable is what's being done. Holding the would-be thief accountable isn't. Thanks for reading a whole lot into a short statement, and I stand by my statement. More people here seem to be of the mind, "just let the thieves steal it's not worth hurting the poor unfortunate soul".

My question then becomes, at what dollar value of my purchased property is it okay to deal with thieving scumbags.

[Gunnair]

GreenTiger" wrote:

$1:

The PC correct nonses of "lets see that they want before they do anything " can get you killed. They weren't there for a cup of sugar.

In this instance, the suspect was running away. If you have such difficulty with the written word, how could anyone trust you to make any kind of correct abstract moral decision on when to shoot?

$1:

While you would be waiting for they to identify themselves and
making sure you are protecting the criminals rights. You and your family could be dead. It's a funny thing about criminals they might get nasty and unpleasant and might actually hurt you. You abviously never met a criminal.

Difficulty with the written word and paranoid. A truly brilliant combination.

$1:

People should have the right to defend them selves and their property.

I have a .45 Cal Auto from WWII it works real well, it's heavy
but it was designed and built to put krauts into Valhala in the
blink of the eye. If someone breaks into my home they may be
joining them or will visit the hospital.

Good for you.

In Canada, which is where the story takes place, and where this forum is hosted, that might get you some serious prison time if it turns out you've broken the laws that allow for self defence and defence of property.

$1:

A criminal may only be interested in property but they can change their mind and go after you. Who do you want bleeding you or someone in your family or them?

It's alarming how so many paranoid nut bars are allowed to own weapons down your way.

[Gunnair]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Gunnair Gunnair:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

But why should I just let thieves get away with stealing "things" that I worked hard for and paid for. It's attitudes like yours that criminals absolutely love.

Hold on here.

Are you suggesting holding the shooter to a degree of accountability is wrong?

This ain't Afghanistan, this is Canada. If this retard is going to defend his property with a gun, at the very least have a target to shoot at and not simply a general direction.

Furthermore, I'm amazed all the pro-gun crowd is suffering from yet another knee-jerk, fully erect, Pavlovian response here when the guy was clearly in the wrong by shooting at a fleeing suspect. It is illegal, full stop. All you responsible gun owners should be the ones howling for accountability of the shooter for using his weapon irresponsibly since responsible use of the weapon is the core point of your argument supporting the laxing of the gun laws.

Un-fuckin-believeable.

Holding the shooter accountable is what's being done. Holding the would-be thief accountable isn't. Thanks for reading a whole lot into a short statement, and I stand by my statement. More people here seem to be of the mind, "just let the thieves steal it's not worth hurting the poor unfortunate soul".

My question then becomes, at what dollar value of my purchased property is it okay to deal with thieving scumbags.

You're military, ROE is like the rule of Canadian law. Do you break from your ROE when you personally don't agree with it?

Speaking of reading into things, you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere where I said thieves should be allowed to steal, though I did say, that under Canadian law, you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

[2Cdo]

Gunnair Gunnair:

You're military, ROE is like the rule of Canadian law. Do you break from your ROE when you personally don't agree with it?

Speaking of reading into things, you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere where I said thieves should be allowed to steal, though I did say, that under Canadian law, you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

ROE's are like Canadian law and there is a lot of grey area within them both. I also never mentioned you when stating the support for the criminals. Also, under Canadian law, one can be judge, jury and executioner when one has a "reasonable expectation" that their life is in danger. This also applies to any and all ROE's whether war-fighting or old UN-style peacekeeping.

Also, I have never violated any ROE's on any deployment, whether I agreed or not with them.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

As people have pointed out, they were running away, no threat to anyone.

How can you be sure of that ?


Were they running to get their own weapons out ?
Were they running so they could reposition themselves and then draw weapons ?


We have a third hand non witness writing their opinion,
or even better, a statement from a criminal..

This is where things get cloudy.

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

As people have pointed out, they were running away, no threat to anyone.

How can you be sure of that ?


Were they running to get their own weapons out ?
Were they running so they could reposition themselves and then draw weapons ?


We have a third hand non witness writing their opinion,
or even better, a statement from a criminal..

This is where things get cloudy.

This is parsing things pretty closely. The guy that was shot was driving away, ie going for some distance. And this isn't Omaha beach where they're going to dig in to make another assault on the bunker.

With your logic, you could shoot anybody in the back, 'cause they might "reposition" themselves. That's pretty scary.

[GreenTiger]

My appologies to the group for my lack of editing my post.

I'm not a super gun nut, but I once got mugged in New York City. When you experience something like that you take defense of self and home very seriously.

[2Cdo]

martin14 martin14:

We have a third hand non witness writing their opinion,
or even better, a statement from a criminal..

This is where things get cloudy.

To be perfectly honest, in the majority of cases the people who support the criminal will believe whatever he says and discount the victim or the police as liars. On a larger scale, anything terrorists accuse us (military) of doing is gospel truth and any rebuttal we offer is propaganda.

Sometimes it's just not worth worrying about.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

martin14 martin14:

andyt andyt:

As people have pointed out, they were running away, no threat to anyone.

How can you be sure of that ?


Were they running to get their own weapons out ?
Were they running so they could reposition themselves and then draw weapons ?


We have a third hand non witness writing their opinion,
or even better, a statement from a criminal..

This is where things get cloudy.

This is parsing things pretty closely. The guy that was shot was driving away, ie going for some distance. And this isn't Omaha beach where they're going to dig in to make another assault on the bunker.

With your logic, you could shoot anybody in the back, 'cause they might "reposition" themselves. That's pretty scary.

You can knock off the insults and just admit you cant get inside the mind
of someone else, and therefore never know what's really going on.

[andyt]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

martin14 martin14:

We have a third hand non witness writing their opinion,
or even better, a statement from a criminal..

This is where things get cloudy.

To be perfectly honest, in the majority of cases the people who support the criminal will believe whatever he says and discount the victim or the police as liars. On a larger scale, anything terrorists accuse us (military) of doing is gospel truth and any rebuttal we offer is propaganda.

Sometimes it's just not worth worrying about.

So you too support the position you should be able to blast away at anybody on your property, even if they're running away and haven't actually caused you any harm?