There might even be another intruder in the house. YOU DON’T KNOW. And while you’re pulling a gun on his buddy, he’s dropping you in your tracks. Then it’s off to rape the women folk.
This sounds very much like the implication that burglars prefer to attack those who are not armed. This seems to me to be - well, counter-intuitive is the polite term.
I have avoided this to date, but I don’t think I can do so anymore. Do you have a cite for this notion? Something like a survey of burglars in prison who marked Yes to the question “Does the risk of getting your silly ass shot off make it more likely that you will assault a homeowner?”
Both types of shitbag will end up with some extra holes God never gave them if they don’t flee at the first opportunity using a route that doesn’t give me the impression they are rushing me, maneuvering for better position, or going for one of the rooms where wife or child resides. Perhaps a better option for either shitbag would be to drop limply face down to the floor, sobbing, begging me to call the po-po to come get them, and to please not blow their face out through their ass. This should be done from a spread-eagled position so that I can clearly see both hands at all times.
I’ve told you. One prefers to sneak about undetected. The other doesn’t give a shit about making a noise, and in your country, probably already has his gun out. He knows exactly where you are coming from, and you are rushing blind into a room, not even knowing who is there. Remember, you could have avoided it with enough of a security deterrent.
I’ll take that one. Look, I had a guy come into the station in 2005 and want to join. I ran the standard backgrpound checks. This guy was a stone criminal and he was only 18. The list of “thrill seeking” break ins, and drug charges were staggering. I told him to go away and sin no more. He then went to the Marines, the USAF and the Navy…not realizing that we all get the same checks. Turned down. Period. No waiver, not a chance.
Because its not our fault his mother didn’t hug him or his father didn’t take him to ball games. Sometimes actions have consequences and his proved that he was not only irresponsible, but stupid too. Now, you may not have ever served, and I’m not going to turn this into a military thread, but I can tell you right now that is not the kind of person I want in my squad when the shit goes down. It has nothing to do with compassion it has to do with the stability of the armed forces. A person that has the record your speaking of would be a detriment to the unit and the forces. There are actual statistics about it too, though i haven’t seen them since 2003. (people with minor criminal records that can be waived were shown to be unreliable and discharged within their first year of service for bad conduct).
If you thinks thats a bad thing for not letting Johnny '“I’ll rob you blind” Thugson join the army then feel free to write your congresscritter.
don’t have the time or inclination? how little compassion you have.
Or I shoot 'em both because his friend is an idiot and his gun jams.
So when does the criminal bear any responsibility or is the 11th commandment 'Thou shalt not defend your home and property and family.". Still waiting on that, since any hypothetical scenario can have alternate outcomes. Is there ever a time when defending yourself isn’t bad?
if not mail me your TV. I don’t feel like carrying it.
Don’t you understand? Thuggie McThuggerson can’t help himself. The only way to prove that we are the civilized ones is to let him commit his crimes in peace and safety.
Sorry…I’m not (personally) threatened by people who want to steal my shit. I’m threatened by people who try to harm me. The guy we’re talking about in this thread has shown no signs of wanting to do that. If he does, that’s a different story. However, the odds are he just wants to grab my stuff and get the hell outta Dodge. Either way, removing myself from the situation is more likely to result in fewer lives lost than drawing on him will. It would be far worse to kill someone who wasn’t trying to kill me than it would be to replace some stuff.
You keep harping on this. No one said the criminal bears no responsibility for the crime. If I missed it, please point it out.
The question is whether people who are simply stealing your stuff deserve to die for that crime. Scumpup says they definitely deserve to die for stealing his belongings, even if he’s unarmed and even if he’s made no threatening moves indicating he intends to harm someone. I disagree. And I think it’s indicative of a bigger social ill. Simple.
Oh come on already! Lots of times now people have said that they would opt for a nonlethal option first. You are literally the only one imagining a homeowner sitting near the door with gun in hand just waiting to kill someone.
DESERVE comes into question AFTER the fact, like say during a trial.
DESERVE has NOTHING to do with equation for the startled homeowner late at night wondering what the hell is going to happen.
And what up with your new double standard?
First, us shoot em up types are somehow supposed to know how things will shake out and therefore NOT have or use a gun.
Yet, if a shoot em up type says he will have or use a gun, you come up with all kinds of cock n bull scenarios that involve shooty mcshooter having NO IDEA what the scenario REALLY is or how it will shake out.
