only in texas can a man murder a child,and not get convicted

[triumphant cracker]

http://www.welt.de/english-news/arti...ng-snacks.html

but hey they were breaking & entering.

what do you guys think about this?

[a500lbgorilla]

he said he was sorry.

[givememyleg]

that's sick

[flomo]

Gonzalez said in Spanish after the verdict. „It was a case where it was my life or theirs, and it's a very good thing that they (the jurors) decided in my favor, or i would kill them too“

favorite comment
"welcome to amerika"

[swiggidy]

The title of this thread is so out of context. A better one...

"Hey dipshit, don't break into people's houses, especially Texas where everyone owns a gun and will shoot you."

or

"Darwin, FTW"

[givememyleg]

i say we go break into his house and kill him wanna go anyone? suspenders maybe?

[JKDS]

The title of this thread is so out of context. A better one...

"Hey dipshit, don't break into people's houses, especially Texas where everyone owns a gun and will shoot you."

this is so true, and they are undeniabley retarded without knowning the reason for them stealing "snacks". I cant really think of a good reason to break into a house for Twinkies to be honest.

HOWEVER...

Anguiano was shot in the back at close range (by a shotgun)

self defense
wait...wat???

[swiggidy]

i say we go break into his house and kill him wanna go anyone? suspenders maybe?

Are you drinking again?

[givememyleg]

haha nah at the airport, flight leaves in 5 mins!

[KoRnholio]

"Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property."

That's all fine and good under the right circumstances.

"the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts."

He gets left off after shooting a kid in the back to protect his his twinkies? Your legal system may as well be run by retarded chimps.

[gabe]

the jury is always right

[Stacks]

"Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property."

That's all fine and good under the right circumstances.

"the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts."

He gets left off after shooting a kid in the back to protect his his twinkies? Your legal system may as well be run by retarded chimps.

Yeah it sucks he died over some twinkies, but do you honestly think the man hears 3-4 individuals in his trailer, and thinks "Oh they just want my cookies"? Probably not. I don't doubt it was probably a bit of excessive force, but he had a right to use whatever measure he wanted as they were trespassing on his propety, and given the circumstances, he might have felt a threat for his life.

[JKDS]

"Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property."

That's all fine and good under the right circumstances.

"the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts."

He gets left off after shooting a kid in the back to protect his his twinkies? Your legal system may as well be run by retarded chimps.

Yeah it sucks he died over some twinkies, but do you honestly think the man hears 3-4 individuals in his trailer, and thinks "Oh they just want my cookies"? Probably not. I don't doubt it was probably a bit of excessive force, but he had a right to use whatever measure he wanted as they were trespassing on his propety, and given the circumstances, he might have felt a threat for his life.

how do you feel a threat for your life when you have all 4 kids kneeling, beating them with the butt of your gun, and then shooting the one in the back?

[Stacks]

"Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property."

That's all fine and good under the right circumstances.

"the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts."

He gets left off after shooting a kid in the back to protect his his twinkies? Your legal system may as well be run by retarded chimps.

Yeah it sucks he died over some twinkies, but do you honestly think the man hears 3-4 individuals in his trailer, and thinks "Oh they just want my cookies"? Probably not. I don't doubt it was probably a bit of excessive force, but he had a right to use whatever measure he wanted as they were trespassing on his propety, and given the circumstances, he might have felt a threat for his life.

how do you feel a threat for your life when you have all 4 kids kneeling, beating them with the butt of your gun, and then shooting the one in the back?

[x] Obviously didn't read the entire article

So yeah I didn't read that part, and that obviously changes quite a few things. So yeah i just retract my foolish statement.

[gabe]

how do you feel a threat for your life when you have all 4 kids kneeling, beating them with the butt of your gun, and then shooting the one in the back?

this isnt a proven fact.

stacks' point is valid, no need to retract

[bigspenda73]

Title of this thread tilts me to no end.

Yes, leg, let's go break in, you first.

[UG]

motherfucker try to steal my twinkies and see what happens




for real, though, if somebody breaks into my home it's going to be shoot first and ask questions later. it's my house, I didn't invite you in, normally people don't break into other people's homes with good intentions (or to only steal twinkies), etc, etc.

now, shooting the kid in the back is horrible but shit happens in the heat of the moment when you break into somebody's house

[bigred]

"Texas law allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property."

That's all fine and good under the right circumstances.

"the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts."

He gets left off after shooting a kid in the back to protect his his twinkies? Your legal system may as well be run by retarded chimps.

Yeah it sucks he died over some twinkies, but do you honestly think the man hears 3-4 individuals in his trailer, and thinks "Oh they just want my cookies"? Probably not. I don't doubt it was probably a bit of excessive force, but he had a right to use whatever measure he wanted as they were trespassing on his propety, and given the circumstances, he might have felt a threat for his life.

how do you feel a threat for your life when you have all 4 kids kneeling, beating them with the butt of your gun, and then shooting the one in the back?

Where does it say that?

[BennyLaRue]

Where does it say that?

Then he forced the boys, who were unarmed, to their knees, attorneys on both sides say.

The boys say they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly. Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., now 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Anguiano's body outside.

Gonzalez said he thought Anguiano was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun.

How do you shoot a kid in the back if he is lunging at you?

[gabe]

"Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range"

wow must be true, lets kill this guy too

[bigred]

Wow, guy should be in jail.

[JKDS]

how do you feel a threat for your life when you have all 4 kids kneeling, beating them with the butt of your gun, and then shooting the one in the back?

this isnt a proven fact.

stacks' point is valid, no need to retract

i dont know why it isnt though. Shot in back is. But beating with the gun would leave bruises and judging by where they were one should be able to determine if the kids were standing or sitting. Regardless though, i woulda fired my attorney if he didnt just beat the whole "shot in the back thing" to death. It really is the whole case.

[yourfather]

Fucked up, manslaughter at least imo. So the law says you can defend your home, but when did it become ok to abandon good judgement and reasonable common sense? He wasn't even home when they broke in so its not like he was totally caught off guard at home, he grabbed his shotgun looking for trouble and was probably itching to shoot some punks.

[ProZachNation]

Here is where I stand, guy wakes up hears people in his house runs out with a gun sees a bunch of shadows and shoots, well that is probably ok (but it coulda been a surprise part you never know)

Guy runs out sees it is kids beats them up a bit then shoots one in the back when he probably (just my guess) tries to run away. Deserves to go to jail.

[Jack Sawyer]

this shit is real fucked up

[UG]

I still stand by my original comments, but this is fucked up:

The boys say they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly. Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Still, I'm sure we're not getting the entire story here.

[Lukie]

Here is where I stand, guy wakes up hears people in his house runs out with a gun sees a bunch of shadows and shoots, well that is probably ok (but it coulda been a surprise part you never know)

No, it's not! That blatantly violates one of the four main rules of gun safety-- know your target and what's behind it. Of course it's just speculation on your part anyway, and it's probably not what happened.

This article illustrates why I hate the media. It's so horribly biased *AGAINST THE GUY WHO'S HOME WAS BROKEN INTO BY 4 PUNKS*. You are only reading the prosecution's side of the story.

Bottom line-- when somebody breaks into your home (or as the case may be, 4 people), you should have the right to defend yourself by using deadly force. That does not excuse executions or shooting people as they run away, but again, we are only reading one side of the story which is being painted by the extremely anti-gun media.

[UG]

Here is where I stand, guy wakes up hears people in his house runs out with a gun sees a bunch of shadows and shoots, well that is probably ok (but it coulda been a surprise part you never know)

No, it's not! That blatantly violates one of the four main rules of gun safety-- know your target and what's behind it. Of course it's just speculation on your part anyway, and it's probably not what happened.

This article illustrates why I hate the media. It's so horribly biased *AGAINST THE GUY WHO'S HOME WAS BROKEN INTO BY 4 PUNKS*. You are only reading the prosecution's side of the story.

Bottom line-- when somebody breaks into your home (or as the case may be, 4 people), you should have the right to defend yourself by using deadly force. That does not excuse executions or shooting people as they run away, but again, we are only reading one side of the story which is being painted by the extremely anti-gun media.

good post

[oskar]

No you should not have that right. What good does it do? How often does someone who breaks into your house want more than your goods. They are not a threat to your life.
It's vigilantism. If the other guy isn't armed, why would you shoot him? The moment you pull your gun is when your life is in danger - that's when the us-or-them mentality kicks in, and you might just be on the short end. Before that the guys would be happy enough to get the fuck out as quickly as possible.

Bottom line is: If you fear for your life if you see a 13 year old with chocolate stained fingers in your trailer, guess what. You deserve to die. Don't fight it.

[Lukie]

No you should not have that right. What good does it do? How often does someone who breaks into your house want more than your goods. They are not a threat to your life.

I read all too often of people being murdered, raped, beaten, and robbed in their homes. I'm surprised you havn't.

Castle doctrine laws (basically, laws that say you have an absolute right to defend yourself in your home) do a lot of good. First, it's only fair to the victim. The victim is the person who's home is being broken into. They should not be put at the mercy of said robber, murderer, rapist, or whoever it may be. Sensible defense laws also serve as a great deterrant. Put it this way-- if you were a criminal, would you break into a home where somebody is likely to be armed and legally able to defend themselves? Now, say you are that same criminal, aren't you going to feel a whole lot more comfortable (and thus, more likely to carry out your crime) if you live in a strict anti-gun zone..... ? Obviously. I could go on and on with this.

It's vigilantism. If the other guy isn't armed, why would you shoot him? The moment you pull your gun is when your life is in danger - that's when the us-or-them mentality kicks in, and you might just be on the short end. Before that the guys would be happy enough to get the fuck out as quickly as possible.

So a 230 pound rapist breaks into the home of a 100 pound female, she should politely ask him to leave and hope he complies? You're nuts.

Bottom line is: If you fear for your life if you see a 13 year old with chocolate stained fingers in your trailer, guess what. You deserve to die. Don't fight it.

Lol, right. It's nice how you word that. 4 teenagers just chilling in my place. uninvited. could have knives in their pockets. could swarm and start beating me. Right, dude.

[UG]

No you should not have that right. What good does it do? How often does someone who breaks into your house want more than your goods. They are not a threat to your life.
It's vigilantism. If the other guy isn't armed, why would you shoot him? The moment you pull your gun is when your life is in danger - that's when the us-or-them mentality kicks in, and you might just be on the short end. Before that the guys would be happy enough to get the fuck out as quickly as possible.

Bottom line is: If you fear for your life if you see a 13 year old with chocolate stained fingers in your trailer, guess what. You deserve to die. Don't fight it.

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this. I own a home. I have a wife. If somebody comes into my home without my permission I am going to assume that they are not there with good intentions. Are they there to steal my Oreo Cookies and Ritz Crackers, or are they there to shoot me, rape/kill my wife, then steal all of my stuff?

Is it a 100% "shoot first and ask questions later" sort of deal? No, I'll have to (quickly) analyze the situation and figure out if and how much danger I am in. I will then proceed from there, but in the heat of the moment don't think I won't protect my wife, myself, and my home with deadly force if I think it's warranted.

[KoRnholio]

Is it a 100% "shoot first and ask questions later" sort of deal? No, I'll have to (quickly) analyze the situation and figure out if and how much danger I am in. I will then proceed from there, but in the heat of the moment don't think I won't protect my wife, myself, and my home with deadly force if I think it's warranted.

I agree. But I don't see how anyone could feel so endangered by few 13 year old kids running with their backs to you with pockets full of your stuff (be it twinkies, DVDs or jewlery), that they need to take one of their lives.

Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted.

[Lukie]

Is it a 100% "shoot first and ask questions later" sort of deal? No, I'll have to (quickly) analyze the situation and figure out if and how much danger I am in. I will then proceed from there, but in the heat of the moment don't think I won't protect my wife, myself, and my home with deadly force if I think it's warranted.

I agree. But I don't see how anyone could feel so endangered by few 13 year old kids running with their backs to you with pockets full of your stuff (be it twinkies, DVDs or jewlery), that they need to take one of their lives.

Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted.

To make at least my points clear (and I think UG probably feels similarly), I was just talking about general views on guns, self defense, etc. I am absolutely not saying you should shoot people in the back as they are retreating. As it relates to the article, all I said was that we are only getting one side of the story, and I'm not ready to jump on the band-wagon without the facts and based only on one article that's very clearly biased against the accused.

Guns already are restricted. There are lots of restrictions. The average person SHOULD HAVE the right to defend themselves in their homes. And don't tell me with a baseball bat, that's a joke. The most dangerous cities have the tightest gun control laws... see: Washington D.C., Chicago, et al.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

What do you guys think of the Joe Horn case? He killed 2 burglars while on the phone with the 911 dispatcher. It doesn't seem to have been any danger to his life, but do you still think it's fine?

The phone call:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

[mcatdog]

A group of four 13-year-old kids could easily injure or kill an old man. I don't know why people are acting like the old man wasn't in danger.

[Trashcona]

A group of four 13-year-old kids could easily injure or kill an old man. I don't know why people are acting like the old man wasn't in danger.

Therefore, shooting one in the back is the way to go?

[mcatdog]

Therefore, shooting one in the back is the way to go?

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

What I meant was, the old man had every right to consider these kids just as much of a threat as any other burglar.

If it's true that the kid was on his knees and he shot him in the back, then he should be in jail, obviously, just as if he'd done the same to a 24-year-old habitual criminal. This is an extreme case though, so you can't use it as a reason why people shouldn't have guns for self-defense, unless you weigh it against all the people who have saved their families lives by confronting a criminal with a gun, or stopped their wife from being raped. I don't like how I make a reasonable point and three minutes later someone's accusing me of being in favor of murdering a child with Twinkies in his pocket. This is why I hardly ever post about politics on this board.

[Lukie]

Therefore, shooting one in the back is the way to go?

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

What I meant was, the old man had every right to consider these kids just as much of a threat as any other burglar.

If it's true that the kid was on his knees and he shot him in the back, then he should be in jail, obviously. This is an extreme case though, so you can't use it as a reason why people shouldn't have guns for self-defense, unless you weigh it against all the people who have saved their families lives by confronting a criminal with a gun, or stopped their wife from being raped. I don't like how I make a reasonable point and three minutes later someone's accusing me of being in favor of murdering a child with Twinkies in his pocket. This is why I hardly ever post about politics on this board.

Replace 'this board' with 'any board, period', and I'd agree with you 100%.

Seriously though, great post, and I can't see how people on either side of the debate wouldn't agree with this.

[Trashcona]

Well, I wasn't implying you were pro murder or anything. In general I'm all for protecting one's self,family and property. I have a serious problem with using excesive force when that force isn't neceserry, which appears to be the case here(granted as lukie's pointed out this is only one side of the story).

I'd be freaked out too if I came home and there were people in my house, but if I pulled a gun on them and said get the fuck out and called the cops, at least I wouldn't be a murderer, which it sounds like this guy is.

Gun control I think is a complete waste of time and effort, the question should be "What the fuck were four teenage boys doing breaking into a house for twinkies in the first place?"

[Lukie]

Also, not sure if this is relevant enough or not, but IIRC from reading the article, the kid that got killed was 13. The four were between the ages of 11-15. I remember in high school, there were some guys at 15 north of 200 lbs that could *single-handedly* put a hurting on just about any 62 yr old out there, but I digress.

Something else I just thought of, all 4 of them were in the process of committing felonies (whether it be burglary, criminal trespassing, whatever). If this had happened in Florida, the 3 of them could have been charged with felony murder, which carries a mandatory life in prison sentence. Not sure how the fact that they were minors would play into it, but they'd probably escape that. Just something to consider (not that I'm at all suggesting these kids deserve life in prison).

[gabe]

WTF MCATDOG LUKIE SO MANY CHILD MURDERERS GEEZ

BAN

[will641]

i don't really have a problem with this. we have the right to protect our homes and should use it. occasionally something like this happens and everyone gets their panties in a twist, but if we start to make laws that you can only protect your home under very specific circumstances the whole thing just gets totally out of whack. bottom line, if someone is breaking into your home, you have the right to shoot. yeah, its sad that a kid was killed, but shit happens. the kids could have been there to kill him, the old man had no way of knowing.

the media reports a story like this every time it happens, but rarely, if ever reports the times when guns save someones life or were used properly.

[Trashcona]

To get back to what I was saying with regards to excessive force, there is another link on that news site here: http://www.welt.de/english-news/arti...ats-flesh.html

This is a situation were someone and I mean anyone should have pulled a gun and shot the fucker, ducy?

Like the DA said in the Texas case, it wasn't about the man protecting his home, it was about him using excessive force when it wasn't needed.

[UG]

Therefore, shooting one in the back is the way to go?

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

What I meant was, the old man had every right to consider these kids just as much of a threat as any other burglar.

If it's true that the kid was on his knees and he shot him in the back, then he should be in jail, obviously. This is an extreme case though, so you can't use it as a reason why people shouldn't have guns for self-defense, unless you weigh it against all the people who have saved their families lives by confronting a criminal with a gun, or stopped their wife from being raped. I don't like how I make a reasonable point and three minutes later someone's accusing me of being in favor of murdering a child with Twinkies in his pocket. This is why I hardly ever post about politics on this board.

Replace 'this board' with 'any board, period', and I'd agree with you 100%.

Seriously though, great post, and I can't see how people on either side of the debate wouldn't agree with this.

again, good stuff

[Trashcona]

the media reports a story like this every time it happens, but rarely, if ever reports the times when guns save someones life or were used properly.

Here lies the problem I think. Police are able to shoot and kill, but only under certain situations. They are in harms way on a regular basis yet they can't just go around shooting people because the "perp" was a mean guy or something.

[triumphant cracker]

What do you guys think of the Joe Horn case? He killed 2 burglars while on the phone with the 911 dispatcher. It doesn't seem to have been any danger to his life, but do you still think it's fine?

The phone call:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

this is a great find..

oh by the way ..some of you haven't noticed,but...they weren't breaking into HIS house...it was his neighbors house.

[givememyleg]

Well, I wasn't implying you were pro murder or anything. In general I'm all for protecting one's self,family and property. I have a serious problem with using excesive force when that force isn't neceserry, which appears to be the case here(granted as lukie's pointed out this is only one side of the story).

I'd be freaked out too if I came home and there were people in my house, but if I pulled a gun on them and said get the fuck out and called the cops, at least I wouldn't be a murderer, which it sounds like this guy is.

Gun control I think is a complete waste of time and effort, the question should be "What the fuck were four teenage boys doing breaking into a house for twinkies in the first place?"

i did some pretty stupid stuff when i was a teenage boy, just lucky i didn't get shot i guess

[UG]

the media reports a story like this every time it happens, but rarely, if ever reports the times when guns save someones life or were used properly.

Here lies the problem I think. Police are able to shoot and kill, but only under certain situations. They are in harms way on a regular basis yet they can't just go around shooting people because the "perp" was a mean guy or something.

Excuse me for the flame, but are you fucking retarded? Your analogy is terrible and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'm not shooting the guy because he is a mean guy. I'm not shooting him because he broke into my house without my permission. I'm shooting someone, however, that breaks into my house without permission if I feel that my life and wife are in danger. That is an exact situation where I find it okay to shoot and kill.

The guy that shot a 13-yr old in the back, well, we don't have all the details but that was probably wrong.....but again we don't know exactly what happened, either.

[Trashcona]

I think UG totally missed my point. I agree with you 100% that if you or your family is in danger then you should be able to use whatever means necessary to protect them(I'm a homeowner and have a wife, son and dog aswell). But my point was, in this case, it totally doesn't seem like his life was ever in danger(based on what we heard in this story). That's the problem I have with this.

[givememyleg]

yeah i think the problem lies in the story, we don't really know what went down. if he's just a crazy mother fucker who killed the kid when he didn't have to then it's sick that he walked away. i don't think anyone disagrees with that.

[UG]

I think UG totally missed my point. I agree with you 100% that if you or your family is in danger then you should be able to use whatever means necessary to protect them(I'm a homeowner and have a wife, son and dog aswell). But my point was, in this case, it totally doesn't seem like his life was ever in danger(based on what we heard in this story). That's the problem I have with this.

I did miss your point, thank you for clarifying it.

[Trashcona]

I think UG totally missed my point. I agree with you 100% that if you or your family is in danger then you should be able to use whatever means necessary to protect them(I'm a homeowner and have a wife, son and dog aswell). But my point was, in this case, it totally doesn't seem like his life was ever in danger(based on what we heard in this story). That's the problem I have with this.

I did miss your point, thank you for clarifying it.

Communicating over the intarwebs, it's fun!

[LuckySlevin]

We have the opposite problem in the UK you are allowed to use equal force if your life is in danger, not excessive force. Half the time if you break someones arm if they are robbing your house you end up having to pay them compensation.

"In recent years governments have even felt it necessary to prevent the public from defending themselves with imitation weapons. In 1994 an English home-owner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the home-owner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...0/31/ixop.html

[KoRnholio]

Common sense fails so, so often. It's quite sad really.

[XTR1000]

No you should not have that right. What good does it do? How often does someone who breaks into your house want more than your goods. They are not a threat to your life.

I read all too often of people being murdered, raped, beaten, and robbed in their homes. I'm surprised you havn't.

Castle doctrine laws (basically, laws that say you have an absolute right to defend yourself in your home) do a lot of good. First, it's only fair to the victim. The victim is the person who's home is being broken into. They should not be put at the mercy of said robber, murderer, rapist, or whoever it may be. Sensible defense laws also serve as a great deterrant. Put it this way-- if you were a criminal, would you break into a home where somebody is likely to be armed and legally able to defend themselves? Now, say you are that same criminal, aren't you going to feel a whole lot more comfortable (and thus, more likely to carry out your crime) if you live in a strict anti-gun zone..... ? Obviously. I could go on and on with this.

It's vigilantism. If the other guy isn't armed, why would you shoot him? The moment you pull your gun is when your life is in danger - that's when the us-or-them mentality kicks in, and you might just be on the short end. Before that the guys would be happy enough to get the fuck out as quickly as possible.

So a 230 pound rapist breaks into the home of a 100 pound female, she should politely ask him to leave and hope he complies? You're nuts.

Bottom line is: If you fear for your life if you see a 13 year old with chocolate stained fingers in your trailer, guess what. You deserve to die. Don't fight it.

Lol, right. It's nice how you word that. 4 teenagers just chilling in my place. uninvited. could have knives in their pockets. could swarm and start beating me. Right, dude.

I actually almost never read about people being murderered or raped at home (not counting the "woman kills her ex-husband stories) and our gun laws are far from liberal, in general you´re not allowed to own a gun and in case of self-defense there must be strong evidence that your life was at risk, otherwise you´re charged for manslaughter at least. Being allowed to kill people who COULD possibly threaten your life (how often does a b&e actually end in a killing or rape?) with a chance of less than 10% i would guess is not a solution of your nations problem.

[oskar]

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this. I own a home. I have a wife. If somebody comes into my home without my permission I am going to assume that they are not there with good intentions. Are they there to steal my Oreo Cookies and Ritz Crackers, or are they there to shoot me, rape/kill my wife, then steal all of my stuff?

Is it a 100% "shoot first and ask questions later" sort of deal? No, I'll have to (quickly) analyze the situation and figure out if and how much danger I am in. I will then proceed from there, but in the heat of the moment don't think I won't protect my wife, myself, and my home with deadly force if I think it's warranted.

You are putting your families lives in danger the moment you pull out the gun. Just let them go. Listen to officer Bob:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

All that was on the line up until that point was your property. You just raised the stakes to your life and the life of your family to protect your property.

[flomo]

don't bring a knife to a gun fight
poor redskins

[swiggidy]

The kids broke into HIS NEIGHBOR's house.

Did anyone RTFA?

[a500lbgorilla]

or are they there to shoot me, rape/kill my wife, then steal all of my stuff?

What if they left all your stuff be?

[Galapogos]

No you should not have that right. What good does it do? How often does someone who breaks into your house want more than your goods. They are not a threat to your life.

I read all too often of people being murdered, raped, beaten, and robbed in their homes. I'm surprised you havn't.

Castle doctrine laws (basically, laws that say you have an absolute right to defend yourself in your home) do a lot of good. First, it's only fair to the victim. The victim is the person who's home is being broken into. They should not be put at the mercy of said robber, murderer, rapist, or whoever it may be. Sensible defense laws also serve as a great deterrant. Put it this way-- if you were a criminal, would you break into a home where somebody is likely to be armed and legally able to defend themselves? Now, say you are that same criminal, aren't you going to feel a whole lot more comfortable (and thus, more likely to carry out your crime) if you live in a strict anti-gun zone..... ? Obviously. I could go on and on with this.

It's vigilantism. If the other guy isn't armed, why would you shoot him? The moment you pull your gun is when your life is in danger - that's when the us-or-them mentality kicks in, and you might just be on the short end. Before that the guys would be happy enough to get the fuck out as quickly as possible.

So a 230 pound rapist breaks into the home of a 100 pound female, she should politely ask him to leave and hope he complies? You're nuts.

Bottom line is: If you fear for your life if you see a 13 year old with chocolate stained fingers in your trailer, guess what. You deserve to die. Don't fight it.

Lol, right. It's nice how you word that. 4 teenagers just chilling in my place. uninvited. could have knives in their pockets. could swarm and start beating me. Right, dude.

I actually almost never read about people being murderered or raped at home (not counting the "woman kills her ex-husband stories) and our gun laws are far from liberal, in general you´re not allowed to own a gun and in case of self-defense there must be strong evidence that your life was at risk, otherwise you´re charged for manslaughter at least. Being allowed to kill people who COULD possibly threaten your life (how often does a b&e actually end in a killing or rape?) with a chance of less than 10% i would guess is not a solution of your nations problem.

It's not about solving the nation's problems, it's about protecting yourself in your home. I think the states have way too strong of a gun culture and don't agree with a lot of their views on it. But I think someone shooting a potential rapist/killer WHO SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN HIS HOUSE isn't a bad thing. Sure it could be less than 10% of the time someone gets seriously hurt by the robber, that doesn't matter. It's the chance it could happen to you, and the fact that if he's going to put himself in league with people that do this stuff, he's going to have to face the consequences.

[UG]

The kids broke into HIS NEIGHBOR's house.

Did anyone RTFA?

Two different cases. Read it again.

They broke into Gonzalez's trailer and which he was not in, apparently I missed that, but it was still his trailer. Either way the article does make the situation sound fucked up, and the boy probably shouldn't have lost his life over this.

[swiggidy]

Either way the article does make the situation sound fucked up, and the boy probably shouldn't have lost his life over this.

Totally agree

[Jack Sawyer]

Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted.

BOOOM! HEADSHOT!

agree 250%

[givememyleg]

Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted.

BOOOM! HEADSHOT!

agree 250%

maybe we should start another gun restriction thread for the 5th time

I WONT LET YOU TAKE AWAY MY RIFLES I LIKE SHOOTIN UP DEM DEER YA HURR?

[flomo]

the juice don't need no pansy ass gun

[will641]

Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted.

BOOOM! HEADSHOT!

agree 250%

LOL @ the avg person being too stupid to make judgment calls etc....

if you stop to think about whether this is justified blah blah in the moment that could be your life. its not about stupidity. in moments like that you revert to instincts.

[KoRnholio]

LOL @ the avg person being too stupid to make judgment calls etc....

if you stop to think about whether this is justified blah blah in the moment that could be your life. its not about stupidity. in moments like that you revert to instincts.

Thinking like this as a civilian (as opposed to someone in the military or police force) is 99.99% paranoia. The number of unnecessary and accidental deaths from guns far outweighs those very, very few times when a crime is deterred because a civilian pulls a gun.

[KoRnholio]

And here's an interesting link.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/The...unControl.html

Especially the (multinational) correlation between % of households with guns and number of gunshot deaths.

[bigspenda73]

bunch of left-wing liberal propaganda beong flung around in this thread.

[JKDS]

so long as people have guns, guns are needed to protect against those people. Say we no longer allow the sale of firearms. Who no longer has guns, the criminals or the law abiding citizens?

A more interesting correlation would be % of households with guns vs crime rate. An even more interesting correlation is that as the number of pirates decreases, the impact of global warming increases.

[gabe]

LOL @ the avg person being too stupid to make judgment calls etc....

if you stop to think about whether this is justified blah blah in the moment that could be your life. its not about stupidity. in moments like that you revert to instincts.

Thinking like this as a civilian (as opposed to someone in the military or police force) is 99.99% paranoia. The number of unnecessary and accidental deaths from guns far outweighs those very, very few times when a crime is deterred because a civilian pulls a gun.

the fact that you think this is quantifiable shows how little you understand the issue

[CoccoBill]

After another school shooting here just last week I feel hardly impressed by ANYONE's so called right to bear arms.

[Jack Sawyer]

these guys had the right to bear arms


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awskKWzjlhk

[spoonitnow]

Not to sound like the jackass I typically am cast off as being, but what's so bad about some 13 year old piece of shit getting shot anyway. World population control has got to start some place, and it might as well be a dumbass kid who hasn't had a chance to knock up some stupid bitch dumb enough to have sex with him and fuck up the world even more with 6-7 retarded ass kids. You know each of those kids is going to knock up some trailer park slut at least 4-5 times each. Imagine the number of welfare checks that were avoided by this little bastard getting shot.

[gabe]

YOU DONT GET IT