Holy ****, trigger happy to say the least. I'm all for him initially shooting them, but executing an unconscious kid in cold blood?
do you SEE its a couple of kids and shoot anyways?
I would have painted him and then told him if he moves im tappin him down...I mean there is protectin g your home and theres EMBRACING the opportunity.When he sees its a young kid...you still shoot?
when you see its a minor Girl...you still shoot?
I dont get it but I promise you the mentality comes from all that 2nd amendement crap and youll get my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands...
The right to bear arms was written with a very specific intent in a time when standing armies were rare.While its intent was and is beneficial, letting every freakin whacko out there who wants the chance to shoot someone fill their homes with a bunch of weapons is just plain stupid.
Guns dont kill people, people kill people....If you take guns out of peoples hands the only ones with guns will be the criminals...always these stupida$$ catchphrases that protect this assinine idea that its not only legal but its a really good idea for people to be armed as often as possible, and if someone steps out of line...hell It coulda been a 10 year old right? doesnt matter...he knows the law....well then deputy dawg will gun im down...Hell Yeah! wyatt earp style...wooohooo!!!
bunch of freakin idiots...
However in my younger days I was much more brazen. In college I lived with a pot dealer and we got broken into once, I was part of a three man, three baseball bat, wrecking crew that scared the two gentleman away quite quickly.
Its easy enough to sit here and and call someone bad or whatever for shooting teenage kids breaking into your home. We live in a time where people are crazy, and you have to take that into account. This isn't the movies where you shoot two rounds right beside the peoples heads and they run off scared. People should have the right to protect themselves in their homes.
Now if these details are correct about the original story, the person went beyond protecting himself / property and moved into more murdering territory.
But let me say this. When you make the decision to break into someones house, you are no longer a victim. Too much crazy out there to not put yourself / family first before a person who broke in. I know most here disagree, but I'm shooting first. Its an easy problem to solve. Stop breaking into peoples houses.
I wonder if this reaction is due to the fact that many FOX News viewers are told that Obama wants to "take their guns away"
I shoot first and ask questions later. Byron should've called the cops, though.
Somethings wrong when you leave the room, go get another gun, return, and unload it into someone you've already shot.
If someone breaks into a home, I have no issue with the homeowner shooting the intruders. But once they stop intruding and are either incapacitated, or attempt to flee, its time to let the authorities handle the situation. My duty as a husband and father is to protect my home and family, not act as judge, jury, and executioner as the initial information here suggests this man did.
Not especially on this issues but personally I think I protect myself and my family in the best way by doing nothing at all and calling the cops.
Geting my gun to defend my property and to prove a point just doesn't strike me as a very safe thing to do.
I'm not interested to escalate a burglary into a shooting because someone wants to take my TV.
I spent my cildhood in Germany(heck I didn't know anyone who knew anyone who had a gun) and never owned a gun, maybe I just don't get it.
The guy went overboard, happens every day in this country. He went beyond protecting himself he crossed that line.
I don't know if he was crazy, filled with rage or maybe thought he wouldn't be caught. Maybe he just didn't care and figured he would put it to a jury to decide.
Whatever the case may be, those kid's don't break into his home they are still alive today. As far as taking away peoples guns would it have been a better story if he killed them with a bat or a knife? How does he know neither of these people were armed? I mean it is very easy to "talk" about doing something and then be in the situation and actually reacting to something.
Maybe he knew the kids were poor and decided to spare them the high medical bill?
for real though this was way overboard and he should have to pay for it
you guys are hilarious sometimes....not only didnt i call the two kids victims.....I turned around and MADE A SEPERATE POST to point out I never called them victims...and two of you still made reference to the idea that I did...after I clarified that point..LOLOLOL
some of you(apparently Mods too) need to practice thorough reading skills.
I refered to the home owner as "The Victim"...I put it in quotations to imply a sense of sarcasim...Last time I checked ,breaking and entering is illegal in this country.when you choose to break the law, you have put yourself in a dangerous position, where the normal protrections of the law and decency are sometimes suspended...that is the risk.
Understanding that risk is a questionable assumption.
I doubt those kids, in their wildest dreams did not suspect they might get shot and killed by a little old man.That was their mistake.
Implying they deserved what they got, was the only intent of my post.
I think it is a perspective gone mad.
There was a time when we cared about our kids.......