Here is what not to do or say if you shoot a burglar...geeez !

[JoeBuyer]

The first shot or two likely were justified to stop the intrusion, but the cold hearted subsequent shots were way over the top. So was the lack of calls to 911.

 

[dave1949]

My reaction may be overboard for the weak of spirit and mind , The meek will not inherit the earth !

"I KILL YOU!"
Jeff Dunham - Achmed the Dead Terrorist - YouTube

 

[MF1433V]

Could have been any number of ways, but that one is doubtful since neither were armed apparently. I cannot believe she went down those stairs after lots of shooting absent any conversation. That just doesn't ring true to me. If she ran off or called out to her cousin, I would consider those things normal actions for a Junior in high school unless, as I said, her thinking was impaired by drugs.

I thought the exact same thing. There is something not quite right with the shooters account of this. She hears gun shots and I would have to imagine some sound, words, something from her cousin and just cames casually down the stairs. It's odd but all speculation based on the memory of the incident from an individual who is not quite good with judgement, or is a whack job who simply wanted to kill.

 

[greasemonkeyok]

When somebody breaks in to steal they deserve whatever comes their way !

That, my friend, is just plain wrong, morally and legally, in Oklahoma.

I suggest your read the articles on the shooting by Ersland in Oklahoma City. Maybe even watch the security video of the shooting posted on youtube. The dead boy in Ersland's case was robbing the pharmacy, and the jury convicted Ersland of murder.

Its called vigilantism, which can land you in jail. Like others have said, it also adds credibility to the anti gun advocates. Consider the fact that some readers of your statements may not have the mental or emotional ability to evaluate your statements intelligently, and be inclined to react as the shooter did if the opportunity arises. The more instances like this that occur, the more likely the gun control lobby will gain traction. You may think your statements are macho or fun, but they are reckless.

 

[stingray1]

They BROKE INTO HIS HOME... He shot them and they were not dead, they were still a possible threat. They needed to be shot again. Period. One down and another coming down the stairs....how would he possibly know there was not 3 or 4 of them? How would he know if they are armed? tHEY BROKE INTO HIS HOME... They would get shot here too.

I agree

 

[CurlyDave]

Sounds like reasonable force to me. First guy down the stairs, shot and not dead yet. Maybe he had a weapon and the guy has no way of knowing. This requires a second and maybe a third shot to confirm. Someone coming down the stairs after hearing gun shots....they MUST be armed !...this person also needs to be stopped at all costs. As far as not calling the cops, the homeowner was clearly in a state of shock and was in fear for his life...not knowing if there may be a third fourth even a fifth burglar in his home......totally justified.

I think this is the analysis that is going to carry the day.

Homeowner knows he is facing multiple intruders. He has had other burglaries recently, firearm(s) were taken in the most recent and he has to assume these burglars are armed with the stolen weapon.

He retreats to his basement and one comes down the stairs. He shoots that one and then a second shot to be sure of the kill. I think this second shot is OK, he is going to have to face the rest of the burglars and if this one comes to behind him he is in deadly danger. At this point he has a proven method for removing the threat without endangering himself too much, so he moves the body to allow other intruders to come down the stairs without seeing it.

Now a second one comes down the stairs, and he shoots the second one. He has no way of knowing this is the last intruder, but his primary weapon has failed. He goes to his much less effective backup and puts the second one down but not out. He has to be in some shock at this point, but he knows better than to leave a live one behind while he faces any more. Especially with his primary weapon disabled. Again he moves the body so that remaining intruders will come down the stairs into his field of fire.

Instead of looking at this from the point of view that these young kids didn't have to die, we need to recognize that they were intruders. The homeowner has the right to protect himself. If there is only one intruder, he has to stop when the threat is neutralized. Since there are multiple intruders, he has to engage in a life or death struggle with the remaining ones. Not leaving a live one behind to revive and attack him from behind while he is dealing with the remainder of the threat is just plain good strategy.

 

[MF1433V]

The human brain's ability to selectively rationalize anything it WANTS to believe is such a curious thing.

I think this is the analysis that is going to carry the day.

Homeowner knows he is facing multiple intruders. He has had other burglaries recently, firearm(s) were taken in the most recent and he has to assume these burglars are armed with the stolen weapon.

He retreats to his basement and one comes down the stairs. He shoots that one and then a second shot to be sure of the kill. I think this second shot is OK, he is going to have to face the rest of the burglars and if this one comes to behind him he is in deadly danger. At this point he has a proven method for removing the threat without endangering himself too much, so he moves the body to allow other intruders to come down the stairs without seeing it.

Now a second one comes down the stairs, and he shoots the second one. He has no way of knowing this is the last intruder, but his primary weapon has failed. He goes to his much less effective backup and puts the second one down but not out. He has to be in some shock at this point, but he knows better than to leave a live one behind while he faces any more. Especially with his primary weapon disabled. Again he moves the body so that remaining intruders will come down the stairs into his field of fire.

Instead of looking at this from the point of view that these young kids didn't have to die, we need to recognize that they were intruders. The homeowner has the right to protect himself. If there is only one intruder, he has to stop when the threat is neutralized. Since there are multiple intruders, he has to engage in a life or death struggle with the remaining ones. Not leaving a live one behind to revive and attack him from behind while he is dealing with the remainder of the threat is just plain good strategy.

 

[KTurner]

First, when does a news story tell the whole story correctly?

If the story is accurate, what are the chances that he set a trap for these individuals? His family already knew that one of these two intruders was robbing houses (according to the quote from his sister). His family had been robbed multiple times recently. Maybe that investigation wasn't moving as quickly as he wanted, or they had just been told there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute or there wouldn't be jail time, so the shooter made sure this person knew the shooter would not be home on Thanksgiving day. Then he waited. He did say he 'wanted him dead'. He did shoot without being able to positively identify a threat, as in both cases only the legs were visible. Sure, it can be said that they were an intruder so they were automatically a threat, but there are plenty of cases where intruders are not threats - police officer, an EMT, a family member, etc. It's like he knew who it was and why they were there beforehand.

Keith

 

[EE_Bota]

So I guess if someone brome into your home and you were in the basement, not knowing how many there were, if they were armed, what their intentions were ( besides the obvious)....you would just ask them nicely as they come down stairs toward you if they were armed and what they wanted? Or maybe you should wait until you can see if they are armed. And by the way, if they are, by this time it is to late. A person needs to prepare for the worst case scenario when a home invasion ensues. And logic would indicate that someone whom has already broken into a private home and then approaches the homeowner is not there to help bake cookies. He was threatened and mortally threatened if you ask me. He was also prepared, not the best of shots, but prepared non the less.

I might let out a high-pitched scream that shatters glass and eardrums. I might overreact in a variety of ways but hopefully in a way others can understand. If a man thinks he would not be scared, perhaps he can understand the concept of being terrified. But sympathy usually resides with the alarmed homeowner who was AT HOME minding his own business and leading his life. But a person can behave in a manner where sympathy for the homeowner is partially or completely lost. Personally, I will always have some sympathy for the person who didn't "start it," but that sympathy does have its limits. Bottom line: this fellow could have conducted his situation where we would all be applauding him and saying "good for him" but he managed to instead sow doubt and mistrust for him and his actions. When that happens, a jury will have their say. I hope he gets a fair jury if it comes to that.

 

[EE_Bota]

well ,if you won't protect your own "stuff" why would you call 911 but for to have someone else protect your stuff ! all thieves should be responsible for their own actions ,You should protect your own stuff rather than ask some police officer to do it for you !View attachment 290511

It's a matter of law. I can shoot them if I fear for my life, but I cannot if I only fear for my stereo. That is the law in this state. I don't know about other states.