Crazy Fucker Tries To Break In And Gets Blasted

As liberal as I am, the guy had it coming. The lady had every right to protect herself. she even had the 'advice' or go ahead from the 911 operator (authority). If someone is breaking down your door with a chair, their intent is not to come in for a cup of coffee.

UnripeArbiter, it seems you just like to argue whatever point is the weakest and then just filibuster and reply with more arguments that just don't hold water. You seem to enjoy getting crapped on by everyone here, this is not the first thread you have jumped in and argued with weak evidence to support your side.
 


He did call the cops. The cops didn't show up in time. Waiting inside would've meant his neighbors shit got stolen by some pieces of shit. Actually, according to Wikipedia the cops had shown up, they were just waiting instead of stopping the robbery. Police are useless.

And it is kind of scary that Barack Obama got elected, I'll give you that.
 
Refrozen said:
He did call the cops.
Click to expand...

Who said he didn't? We're hearing the phone call...

Refrozen said:
The cops didn't show up in time. Waiting inside would've meant his neighbors shit got stolen by some pieces of shit. Actually, according to Wikipedia the cops had shown up, they were just waiting instead of stopping the robbery. Police are useless.
Click to expand...

So, he overrode the police...

Refrozen said:
And it is kind of scary that Barack Obama got elected, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...

OK.

JakeStratham said:
Now come on people. That's something we can ALL get behind.
Click to expand...

Except for the other dumb shits (the MAJORITY at the time of voting).
 
Come guys, a common sense neutrality of how to treat a fellow man is all that's in order here.

In the case of the burglary next door, that was a little questionable. I understand both sides though.... as an older gentleman is probably fearful they might hit his house next, with him or his family in it. On the other hand, my opinion is that he should have kept his ass inside and not fired.

Now the lady on the other hand, I don't think there's any conflict there. It's someones own choice how they protect their home. When you feel the springs start to compress in that trigger, it's your decision to take the chance of someone you know being on the other side of that barrel. She took it, and in a way I can't blame her, as it doesn't really seem she would've had any other way to protect herself had the events gotten out of hand.
 
medicalhumor said:
As liberal as I am, the guy had it coming. The lady had every right to protect herself. she even had the 'advice' or go ahead from the 911 operator (authority). If someone is breaking down your door with a chair, their intent is not to come in for a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. This woman was right. Moving on...

matt3 said:
Come guys, a common sense neutrality of how to treat a fellow man is all that's in order here.

In the case of the burglary next door, that was a little questionable. I understand both sides though.... as an older gentleman is probably fearful they might hit his house next, with him or his family in it. On the other hand, my opinion is that he should have kept his ass inside and not fired.
Click to expand...

Yup, yup.

matt3 said:
Now the lady on the other hand, I don't think there's any conflict there. It's someones own choice how they protect their home. When you feel the springs start to compress in that trigger, it's your decision to take the chance of someone you know being on the other side of that barrel. She took it, and in a way I can't blame her, as it doesn't really seem she would've had any other way to protect herself had the events gotten out of hand.
Click to expand...

Yup, yup. The only issue I had was...what were this man's intentions? (now very clear with a gun in his hand)

The only reason I cared about his intentions was because I thought the law might take this into account...in this case the law just presumes his intent is nefarious (and rightly so).

So the woman's case is clear and the burglary next door was questionable. Agreed.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
No.

You guys are silly... you don't even know what my position is.

My position is...life has value. Think before you kill. Simple as that.

Yes, if my life was in immediate danger, I'd kill too...but I don't think I'd have killed these robbers. Maaaaaaybe, shoot them in the legs or something.

But stealing isn't worthy of death...

Let me ask you something...have you ever stolen something?

------

edit: yes, I have been robed before. But, overall, I don't like to wear robes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the neg rep, greenleaves! :)

"But stealing isn't worthy of death... but it is ok for civilians to die to make sure, just in case, a Thug isn't armed, or maybe is? Fucking idiot!"

Which case are you talking about, jackass? In the case of the burglary next door the guy didn't have to know if the guy had a gun or not... he just had to stay in his fucking house.

Every case is not black and white like you want it to be. Idiot.
 
The problem with the mentality being advocated by some on this thread is that it puts the victim in a precarious position.

Those that like to think they're nuanced and deep thinkers don't understand that the odds are against them.

Sometimes you simply won't have time to check a home invader's intentions. Sometimes you won't get a second chance.

What happens if you wait until the home invader comes close enough to see whether they have a gun? What if it's dark out?

9 times out of 10, sure the victim might see and make the correct decision. But what about that 1 time they wait too long? What about that 1 time it's too dark out, they wait to see if the home invaders armed, and he pulls a gun out from behind his back and blows them away?

I'll never take that chance. I'm never gonna advocate a 90% of survival for a victim of a home invasion, solely to confirm the invader has peaceful intentions.

What if she tried for the leg? What if the adrenaline was flowing, and her hands were shaky? She gets off a low shot, misses, and the lunatic is upon her? Who wants to take the responsibility for that scenario?

I'd venture to say 99% of home invasions stem from nefarious intentions, if not 100%. I'd never tell the victim of a home invasion to put their life on the line just to check if it's that 1%. It's simply not worth the cost.

Those advocating shooting for the leg or waiting are telling the homeowner to take chances with his/her life. In a high-stress scenario, you could miss aiming for your assailants leg; that's why most police trainers tell you to aim for center body mass. And if you wait too long, it could be a second too long, especially if it's in the dead of night and visibility is low.

It's really not even worth arguing about. When weighing between the life of the homeowner and the invader, I'll stand by the homeowner every time. Anybody who says otherwise needs to have their head checked.
 
Arbiter, you're a fucking psychopath yourself and should not be legal to own a gun.

How in fucks sake can you defend that guy at all? You think he was trying to get help by not saying words and smashing her door in with patio furniture? What in the hell is wrong with you? You're a complete moron if you think he was .000000000001% innocent.

I vote you get the next ban, you are a seriously troubled troll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hellblazer
SUP3RNOVA said:
Arbiter, you're a fucking psychopath yourself and should not be legal to own a gun.

How in fucks sake can you defend that guy at all? You think he was trying to get help by not saying words and smashing her door in with patio furniture? What in the hell is wrong with you? You're a complete moron if you think he was .000000000001% innocent.

I vote you get the next ban, you are a seriously troubled troll.
Click to expand...

I was hardly trying to defend him.

Just curious what his intentions were. (which is silly now in retrospect, but if it turned out his intentions were benign I thought this woman may not have been able to get off the hook... Nevertheless, I hoped she would be able to. It turns out that his intentions are moot, however.)

That's it.

The woman was right, and I never really thought negatively of her.

So, ok?

You just want to think I was vehemently trying to defend this man so you can hate me that much easier. (oh and whatever lawyer volunteers to defend him...must be a seriously troubled troll...)
 
I'm happy that Joe shot the two. UnripeArbiter, you keep saying that stealing isn't worth shooting someone over, but that's fucking wrong. When a person steals something from you, they take your assets right? Assets = Money, right? What are we brought up to do our whole life? It's to make a living, either a shitty 9-5 job, or an entrepreneur, we spend a shit load of our life learning to make money, and making money. When someone comes and tries to take a portion of your life, you have every fucking right to shoot him. It's not just property, it's much more.

I agree though that he could have stayed in this house and not done anything, since nothing was being taken from him, but I'm still fine with him being trigger happy. The law in his state allowed him, and honestly, the robbers have to be fuck heads to rob houses in a state with Castle Laws.
 
mGrunin said:
I'm happy that Joe shot the two. UnripeArbiter, you keep saying that stealing isn't worth shooting someone over, but that's fucking wrong. When a person steals something from you, they take your assets right? Assets = Money, right? What are we brought up to do our whole life? It's to make a living, either a shitty 9-5 job, or an entrepreneur, we spend a shit load of our life learning to make money, and making money. When someone comes and tries to take a portion of your life, you have every fucking right to shoot him. It's not just property, it's much more.
Click to expand...

I understand your reasoning, but wouldn't the person have to completely deprave you of all your possessions for the rest of your life for your logic to really pan out? I mean how many assets does one have to steal to equate to one human life?

Besides, I think robbery isn't worth taken someone's life, to just shoot them is different.

mGrunin said:
I agree though that he could have stayed in this house and not done anything, since nothing was being taken from him, but I'm still fine with him being trigger happy. The law in his state allowed him, and honestly, the robbers have to be fuck heads to rob houses in a state with Castle Laws.
Click to expand...

The robbers were fuckheads, I agree. The shooter was, definitely, a little trigger happy too, I agree. (especially since the police were already there...this man overrode the fucking police that were there and killed these guys. I'm just taken this fact for granted...it was supplied by someone else. But, apparently, he unnecessarily took it into his own hands.)

But yeah, these fuckheads had it coming to them.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
I didn't buy them for self-protection...
Click to expand...

[quote="UnripeArbiter]Also, reminds me to ask for a Knoxx SpecOp stock for Christmas. (can't have too much recoil when blowing the arm off an intruder :) )[/quote]

Pretty funny that you don't buy guns for protection, but the first thing that comes to your mind is blowing off the arm of an intruder.

You talk so much you can't go a single conversation without contradicting yourself in some way. Your statements need to be shortened by about 75%, nobody wants to read your babble.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
I understand your reasoning, but wouldn't the person have to completely deprave you of all your possessions for the rest of your life for your logic to really pan out? I mean how many assets does one have to steal to equate to one human life?


But yeah, these fuckheads had it coming to them.
Click to expand...

As retarded as it may sound, the robbers were probably going to put a hole in the owner's wallets with the property stolen, the same way Joe put a hole through them.
 
If there is a law that allows a person to defend themselves/property with deadly force. A criminal is basically saying robbing this guy is worth the risk of dying. He might walk with a tv or he might be dead. IF someone is in the house when he breaks in there is a high probability their life could be in danger. If they have a gun or a nine iron and think they need to use it to protect themselves they should.

There is no excuse for breaking into someones home or attacking someone. I can't feel sorry for someone that gets shot in any of these cases. Penalties in many cases are not severe enough.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
I mean how many assets does one have to steal to equate to one human life?
Click to expand...

Actually, none, the mere threat of it is sufficient.

UnripeArbiter said:
Besides, I think robbery isn't worth taken someone's life, to just shoot them is different.
Click to expand...

Shoot to kill. If they live and they or their family are able to sue you in your state they could take everything you have.
 
mGrunin said:
As gay as it may sound, the robbers were probably going to put a hole in the owner's wallets with the property stolen, the same way Joe put a whole through them.
Click to expand...

A hole in your wallet isn't equal to a hole in your chest.

It doesn't equate, sorry.

A hole in your wallet may be equal to a hole in their leg though, I'm fine with that.

SUP3RNOVA said:
Pretty funny that you don't buy guns for protection, but the first thing that comes to your mind is blowing off the arm of an intruder.

You talk so much you can't go a single conversation without contradicting yourself in some way. Your statements need to be shortened by about 75%, nobody wants to read your babble.
Click to expand...

I didn't buy the gun for self-protection...

When I said "blow the arm of an intruder" I was trying to pander to the gung-ho audience out there...

I failed at that front too... should have said "blow a hole in his chest".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom