Was the homeowner still under attack when and while he retrieved the firearm? If not, then this was murder.
I answered a particular question. You seem to be finding fault in my answer, but as the answer to some other question.
Why don’t you ask the question YOU want answered?
But just to satisfy my curiosity, what’s an AO, and how does one ‘unass’ it?
ETA: Hell, I just assumed someone else had asked the original question! Maybe try asking the question you want answered the first time?
According to the report, the suspect started a fight with the homeowner and was physically assaulting him. At that point, the homeowner’s ability to defend himself was a positive event.
Of course. I consider it positive - hence the thread title and my posts in the thread. Was that unclear? Just like someone else considers it positive when firefighters are shot - we all make our own judgments. You may be confused with the discussion of morality or legality - those were introduced by Esox. He brought up the criteria of “absolutely necessary” with respect to the morality of a given action and responsible gun ownership.
I think leaving your house during a suspected vehicle break in is often a tactical error that I personally wouldn’t do. I don’t have valuables in my car and I have good insurance, and I can afford the monetary hit a vehicle theft would involve. However, I don’t fault a person for going out to investigate - that’s a personal choice. Once the suspect escalated, defense was appropriate.
An analogy could be a shopkeeper who witnesses a shoplifter. The owner would be completely justified in telling the person, “Hey, don’t steal my stuff!” right? In some cases, the owner can even detain the shoplifter for a brief time. Well, if the shoplifter responds with violence, do we criticize the owner for speaking out?
It seems like this part of the story: “The homeowner was able to retrieve a handgun and shot the suspect.” would need further clarification before determining if this was a “positive” gun news story.
If the homeowner got hit multiple times, escaped the clutches of the intruder, went inside, grabbed his handgun, and then went back outside to shoot the guy, is that still a legal shooting? Not saying it DID happen that way, which is why I would be interested to know what “able to retrieve a handgun” means.
I was surprised there was even a follow up article. In my experience these are usually not events and there isn’t much to go on beyond the funeral services for the deceased when doing a name search. The funeral services or obituary has never had information relating to the incident, and this one is no different.
Reading this, I interpret this as the homeowner had the firearm on his person when he stepped outside. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that residents carry with them even when at home - and even more likely when confronting a person breaking into your vehicle.
This article says about as much, in slightly different language:
Fair enough, thanks for finding more info on the story.
I have been in a few fights instigated by the other party - fortunately, long ago.
Never thought killing the other person would have been a positive solution.
And in a situation like this one, where there were multiple paths to avoid the necessity of killing the burglar, assuming it was a necessity at that moment, I would expect any non-sociopath to be feeling a great deal of guilt and remorse on that account.
I’m not confused in the least. You were the one saying ‘if it’s legal, then it’s OK,’ while he was saying ‘no, just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.’
To paraphrase Mellencamp: *Callin’ it the law, ol’ hoss, sure don’t make it right, but if you want me to, I’ll say a prayer for your soul tonight. *
I didn’t say I would fault such a person, did I? Scumpup asked me how I would prefer for events to have played out. I told him. I’m not sure what problem he had with my response - as you yourself indicate here, that choice was certainly within the realm of reasonable responses.
Maybe legally. I don’t know what the law is in SC these days; it’s been a couple of decades since I lived in Richland County. But protecting oneself from fists with bullets is AFAIAC not a reasonable thing, unless the guy’s Mike Tyson and will leave you crippled.
No. But there’s a rather huge difference between speaking out and killing. I’m speaking out right now, yet I presume my words have no negative effect on your health.
The criteria you identify is too narrow. One need not be under attack by Mike Tyson to have a reasonable fear of great bodily injury from fists alone. A average middle aged adult could easily inflict enough damage to meet this standard on another average middle aged adult. Size or age disparity could exacerbate the danger.
True, but not on point. If the store owner tells the shoplifter to stop stealing his stuff, and the shoplifter responds by attacking the store owner, would you say the store owner should have called 911, and taken video of the theft from a hidden position while waiting for the cops in case they don’t arrive before the shoplifter leaves, rather than confront the shoplifter?
In other news, Men charged in alleged robbery attempt that led to shooting in Superior
(my bold)
Brought a knife to a gun fight and lost. DGU with no deaths.
^If I were a reporter in Superior I think I’d go with “police officers from Superior” rather than “Superior police officers”.
I’m 5’ 3" and dress out at 110.
A middle school football player could beat the snot out of me.
Two Concealed Carry Customers Thwart Armed Robbery
Your average middle-aged male adult can’t fight worth a damn anymore, if he ever could. So I kinda doubt it.
How is it not? I mean, did you read your own words? You wrote them, I responded to them as written. If you meant something different in your head, and my response isn’t germane to that, then that’s your problem, and not mine.
Tru dat, but most middle school football players could beat most average-sized middle-aged adult men in a fight, by virtue of (a) a lot more of their weight being muscle, and (b) not being 30 years out of practice with respect to fighting.
Some one, go ahead and ask me if I am pro shooting middle school football players, so we can get it over with. 
You’re really arguing the idea that a person of average build in middle age can’t summon enough energy to inflict great bodily harm sans weapons? How strange. If you are set on this belief I won’t try to convince you. It is quite bizarre.
It’s truly surprising this point is lost on you. I’ll try to elaborate. Let’s look at what you wrote:
The reason this isn’t on point is because you’ve mangled the the example I used, not responded to what was written. You omitted the part where the shoplifter initiates violence against the store owner. So yes, the store owner telling the shoplifter to stop stealing has no negative effect on anyone’s health, but that’s not the example given. Each of the two statements you made were true, but since they weren’t what was being discussed, they were not on point. Does that make sense now?
It’s also strange, because you cut the part of my post where I restated the example, and asked a question to further the point. Here it is again:
Do you have a response?
In other news,Shooting in Dacula road rage incident deemed self-defense
People following you to your home would be considered very aggressive in my book. Though if someone is following, a better destination could be a police station.
It isn’t just my individual morality. It’s the collective morality of Western civilization of which the U.S. is the lone exception when it comes to guns. Americans have won hard-fought battles for all kinds of civil rights out of a respect for human life, but not where guns are involved. Flooding the country with guns so that criminals and the mentally ill have easy access to them shows a non-civilized lack of regard for human life. (Coincidentally, or not;), people are then encouraged to define themselves as potential victims who need guns to defend themselves. Clever feedback loop, that.)
You are the one using the letter of the law to justify the shootings and disregarding it when it involves investigating the shooters, not me. It’s your job to explain the discrepency, not mine.
So you are saying the US is uncivilized in this matter. Okay well, good luck with that. The collective morality of the US disagrees with you.
You make a couple mistakes here. First, I’m not disregarding the law. Second, it’s not my job to explain an alleged discrepancy, even if there was one.
In other news, Homeowner uses gun to scare off home invasion suspects
DGU with no shots fired.
In other news, APD: Home invasion thwarted by armed homeowner
DGU with no deaths. I personally recommend against answering the door for *anyone *that hasn’t been invited.