Of course, if he shoots a guy in the foot, it give that guy a chance to shoot back if he has a gun, perhaps killing the homeowner or his family. Not to mention, you'd have to be a pretty spectacular shot to shoot at the arms/legs of moving targets in the dark. As for shooting them in the back, how do I know they aren't running to take cover and shoot back if I'm in that situation? Heck, with my wife screaming, the adrenaline pumping, and being scared out of my mind that four armed people are in my home, I'm unloading the entire magazine no matter what direction they are running.
I'd feel guilty for a second, then immediately think "Better them then me". I'd feel bad for the family of the teens, they lost a child or sibling. But those teens made a choice and there are consequences to that choice.
I couldn't find a reputable story where a would-be-thief sucessfully sues the person who shot them. But I've heard from several sources that it has happened. Its a pretty common topic of discussion over at the gun forums. One story I've read was about a guy who was sitting in his living room watching TV when some kicks his door down and attempts to go in. Guy shoots him and he runs away. Shortly after the shot-guy reports and/or sues him, saying he was shot at in his own backyard. I don't remember the specifics but it resulted in messy legal proceedings, the shooter losing his job, and not being able to find a job for three years or so. Had to do with the DA not properly filing paper work or something. But yeah:
And to add to that, everyone has heard the story where the a lady buys coffee, spills the coffee on herself and scalds her vagina only to successfully sues the restaurant for selling her the coffee right? If that can happen, I can't see why a robber couldn't successfully sue a their would-be-victim...especially since gun ownership is already a very polarizing topic.
McDonalds had many injuries because their coffee was too hot. They used set their temperatures much higher than the industry standards. The lady first asked mcdonalds to pay for the medical bills, and after they declined many times, she decided to sue. Please hear all the facts before coming to conclusions. There is almost always more to the story.
You have obviously never fired a gun. Aiming, at a distance, for a leg or arm is VERY hard to do. You are likely to miss, and who knows what happens should the bullet ricochet? Personally, I own guns. If I felt that I or somebody I care about was in imminent danger, I would shoot. I pray often that it NEVER happens. I know that it would haunt me the rest of my days and I would be pretty messed up for a long time. That is responsible gun ownership. Own it, but pray you never find yourself in a position where you feel compelled to use it.
I know the story. The fact here is that she spilled it on herself. There is/was no set "industry standard" for coffee temperature; McDonald's just deviated from the industry average temperature. The point here is lawsuits that seem frivolous do occur. And a robber being shot by his victim and going on to sue his victim is not far fetched.
The point is you say that there have been several occasions where the robber has successfully sued the victim yet cannot come up with a single instance of it happening. Then you back up your lack of proof with a story about McDonald's coffee.
I have no problems with the intruders getting murdered on the spot...If that was my house, I'd shoot to kill and have no problems sleeping at night after that. Ive heard that argument in this thread that they were 16 and shouldnt deserve to die over a childhood mistake...please, they may have been "kids", but they carry guns and break into homes. Lets be honest here, this wasnt a "mistake". They were obviously headed down a dangerous path and Im sure that if they didnt fail here, they would have continued wreaking havoc on people, either harming others or eventually harming themselves. Better to get rid of trash sooner than later.
I can't remember any specifics, but in my risk management class in college, the professor point blank told us about 2-3 cases where people had been successfully sued for shooting an intruder. They might have all been overturned on appeal, but it's been almost 10 years...hard to remember.
They break into your home, steal everything of value and flee. You call the police, who pursues them on a chase and has to shoot 3 of them for evading arrest. All you did was outsource it to law enforcement. Them doing what they did, it WAS going to end very badly. If the robbers cared about safety, or if they had any respect for life at all, even at 16 they wouldnt have done a crime that obviously can result in their own fateful end. Young people being stupid is them standing on top of a moving vehicle, being careless around machinery, doing too much drugs or something. If you forcefully enter into someone else's territory not yours and wanting their possessions, you think that person is just gonna willfully ALLOW you do that with no confrontation? You trespass in with no conscience, but you expect the person who's stuff your stealing to have a conscience?
Ok fine. Disregard what I said about "successfully" suing. I have posted evidence where a robber has attempted to sue a person for shooting them. Avoid hassle and legal fees by killing your robber.
well, he saw them have a gun, thats probably the reason he shot, if they didnt i believe he wouldnt have shot them
