If someone breaks into my house, I won't shoot to incapacitate. I will shoot to kill, that means multiple quick tap hits center mass till they don't move. In other words, there will be no time for someone to just be wounded. Then I'd call the police immediately after and simply state: "Officer, I was in fear of my life and had to act to safeguard me and my family." When asked about the sequence of shots, I would state I shot till the threat was down and nothing more ... Got to play it smart and don't give "ammunition" if you will to the knuckleheads out there that don't have any stake in your well-being...
If he stabbed them and they were incapacitated and then he slit there throats to finish them the reaction would probably be the same. Someone's breaking point isn't necessarily a legal defense. If someone is having a terrible day at work, gets rear ended on the drive back from work and then beats the other driver senseless claiming they got pushed past their breaking point probably isn't going to be a defense that is going to fly.
regardless if it's defensible doesn't matter and I'm sure he wasn't thinking legalities when he did it... my point is this guy had a short breaking point. Also he didn't just have a "bad day at work" then snapped. He had two theives break into his home while he was there. huge difference.
True this was worse than a bad day at work but my point is that just because someone has passed their breaking point is no legal defense. As noted the self-defense laws are pretty clear in regard to when self-defense no longer applies and this guy crossed that. Anyway I don't know whether he was thinking of legalites or not, probably not but it seems like someone who worked in security probably should've known better. I also question whether this was a case of just snapping. Further that he did so in a methodical manner rules out temporary insanity or acting under stress. It would be one thing if he just panicked and pumped them full of lead. Moving the bodies applying a "clean finishing shot", and waiting a day to call authorities isn't acting out of control because you've snapped. It shows something far more calculated.
There is nothing wrong with quickly pumping an invading threat full of lead till the threat ceases to move...so often one, two or even three may not incapacitate a threat. In the 1986 miami FBI shootout, a bad guy was hit by an agent who expertly aimed center mass and momentarily ceased shooting after realizing the shot hit the bad guy. Unfortunately the bullet did not penetrate vitals enough and the lack of follow up shots cost the agents life, and 3 fellow agents as the bad guy was able to stagger and return fire until finally a kill shot from a 5th agent... The key for proper self defense here is you do so rapidly to avoid the appearance of methodically acting for the kill. What you want to do is incapacitate an invader as quickly as possible with fast follow shots to secure your safety.
Check your state's Castle laws before you do it, that's a lot of excessive force. In most situations that will reflect poorly from a legal perspective (to say the least). Of course, I'm not even bothering to appeal to pro-life sensibilities or morality here, seeing as how you seem so gung-ho on being a judge, jury, and executioner.
In TN, I'm good..also the same in Texas... Shooting rapidly until a threat no longer moves is not excessive. ...it's actually smart to ensure the threat cannot perform any counter acts against you. What I won't do is shoot again after considerable time has elapsed. Good bullets cost good money
I think there's a legit difference between that sentiment and protecting your safety. Maybe I watch too many reality crime shows, but wounded attackers still have harmed and killed many victims.
Even the Bible condones the killing of intruders into your home. I'm a committed Christian, and if I had the choice I'd rather not kill someone, but given the fact that I have 3 daughters, a son & my wife in the home with me...enter at your own risk. I will not hesitate to take out a potential threat, or threats to my family. In Australia they have disarmed the public, so it's only the criminals that have kept the guns. Unfortunately for the theif that enters my home, I no longer have any guns for a quick clean kill...but I kept my swords and throwing knives from my days as a martial arts instructor. Regarding OP: In this case the man was justified, IMO, in taking out the threat to himself & home, but his method points to some sort of sadistic mental issue. Almost if he enjoyed the killing, and his protection or self defence was secondary.
From what I read of the story, it seems your hypothetical situation differs greatly from his. In his case, imagine you unloading all your bullets, but found your robber injured, with no weapon on his body, unable to harm you physically in any way shape or form. And at that instance, you decide to execute him proudly rather than call 911.
I think the 2nd shot to each is potentially manslaughter. The "clean kill shot" to the girl after dragging her across the room while she is grasping for air - murder - probably in the 2nd degree. He can argue that he was emotionally distressed. But the fact that he intentionally acted to end her life knowing she was incapacitated makes it murder nonetheless. He should go to prison. While these two teens are hoodlums and petty criminals - no one deserves to die the way that girl did. Man is insane at best.
Yes agreed. It's pure self defense to fire multiple shots i.e. double taps..at a perpetrator in a home invasion against you until incapacitation is assured, but I never WANT to go beyond self defense after a threat is down. If the perpetrator dies, then they die,..but I would never seek to ensure this after incapacitation.
da fuq? That actually sounds pretty badass considering you posted a pic in the hangout sometime ago where you looked like subzero. This is the image I get though.
In a related story out of MN a man shot his 16 year old granddaughter yesterday thinking she was someone breaking into their home. http://www.startribune.com/local/183035081.html Rochester man searching for an intruder shoots his granddaughter A 61-year-old Rochester man shot his granddaughter at the patio door of his home late Monday night, telling police he had armed himself with a pistol to investigate a suspected intruder, police said. Authorities are still investigating the incident involving the 16-year-old girl, who lives at the house with her grandparents. Shot in the upper torso, she was taken to the hospital in critical condition but was expected to survive, Police Capt. Brian Winters said. When the couple went to bed Monday night, the girl was at home, Winters said. When they woke to a noise outside around 11 p.m., the man got a 9 mm pistol and went to investigate while the grandmother called police. The man saw a figure at the patio door and fired two rounds, striking his granddaughter once, Winters said. He declined to give the family's name. The shot was fired from inside the residence to the outside, Winters said, declining to say whether it went through the door or if the door was open at the time. "This is a tragic event and both the grandfather and grandmother were distraught and emotionally upset," he said. As part of their investigation, police are waiting to speak to the girl, who was responsive but not verbal, Winters said. There was no evidence of a dispute or disagreement between the girl and her grandparents Monday evening, he added, saying she had been living with the grandparents for several weeks or months. "She resides at the residence with her grandparents, so she was not breaking into the residence at all," Winters said. "Preliminary indications are that she perhaps left the residence to go outside and get some air and have a cigarette." The grandfather, who serves as a pastor at a local church, was not arrested, but authorities will continue to investigate and, if appropriate, will forward the case to prosecutors for potential criminal charges, Winters said. A phone call to the Rochester house, in the 2400 block of East River Road NE., went unanswered Tuesday. The case comes just weeks after a man in Little Falls, Minn., was charged with fatally shooting two teenage intruders inside his home on Thanksgiving. Authorities in that case described the incident as an execution, with the shooter firing several times to finish off his victims. They said the shooter's reaction went beyond the legal protections of Minnesota law that allows crime victims to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property during a felony. Instances in which a shooter mistakes a relative for an intruder are rare, said Joseph Olson, a law professor at Hamline University and president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance. Under Minnesota law, he said, the defender can use his gun if he reasonably perceives that there is a threat, such as someone in the house committing a felony, or if he believes he is in danger of death or great bodily harm. "It's based on his reasonable perceptions and his reasonable judgment from those perceptions that shooting is necessary," Olson said. Olson said he would need more information to understand what happened in the Rochester case. "The law realizes that perfection is not possible in heart-beating situations, and so we need more to know whether this is a good instance of self-defense that turned out unfortunately, or whether it's not an instance of self-defense, in which case it could be an assault," Olson said. "Oftentimes they don't charge when you shoot relatives because it just adds to the family misery," Olson added.
The Bible passage you posted doesn't absolve Smith shooting the two teens. [rquoter]Exodus 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”[/rquoter] As IIRC he shot them during the day.
I understand those quotes. If you only believed in the old testament, then that might be an argument. But as someone who believes in the new testament, it is against the message of Christ who talked about not killing, loving the enemy, and if someone takes something from you, give them even more, turning the other cheek. And when people brought up old testament passages to argue against his message he told them that he wasn't changing the old testament but fulfilling it. In other words they got it wrong. I'm sure we disagree on this, but it is what it is.
He was in his right to kill them when he shot. If somebody breaks into my house i'm certainly gonna shoot to kill. But after you have clearly stopped the threat, you don't have the right to execute them, which is what he did. He himself acknowledged he shot because she laughed not because he felt threatened.
