Current Events > Two burglars killed by homeowner that had an AK-47

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/it-was-either-me-or-them-man-kills-burglars-with-ak-47/ar-AAydWvy?li=BBnbfcL
---

Automatic Riffle - 47!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
---

stood his ground

Tomorrow, well get a story saying two burglars killed a homeowner with an AR-15.
---

democrats want that homeowner to have been defenseless
---

why did he have to murder those people

he should have called the police instead
---

This wouldn't have happened if the burglers had a gun
---

Should have stopped the with thoughts and prayers.
---

NeonOctopus posted...

This wouldn't have happened if the burglers had a gun

According to the article, both were armed.
---

they absolutely deserved it, but since he basically shot them when they were running away, that might cost him some jail time.

EDIT:
"it was determined that no criminal charges will be filed at this point. "

okay, i don't quite understand. i'm happy for him, but does Stand your Ground/Castle Doctrine/whatever still apply when they are no longer threathening him?
---

AlephZero posted...

why did he have to murder those people

he should have called the police instead

Because castle doctrine and slow police response times.
---

Ak-47? Investigate that man for terrorist ties immediately!

Asherlee10 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

AlephZero posted...

why did he have to murder those people

he should have called the police instead

Because castle doctrine and slow police response times.

On top of that, it's hard to say how someone is going to perform or react in a scary scenario like that. I would like to imagine that if I ever had to protect myself in that manner from a home invasion that I would not shoot to kill, but just immobilize the person. But I can't say if the combination of fear and adrenaline would allow me to be on point like that.

You shoot to STOP the threat.
---

If someone breaks into your house and you have a gun, you shoot to kill because otherwise it's a risk for you and your family.

Simple as that.
---

Ill sure miss those dudes that literally invade homes....
---

Home owner should get an award.
---

Problem is that the most effective area to aim for to stop the threat happen to be lethal. Aiming for limbs is difficult and it may not be effective at stopping the bad guy relative to aiming for center of mass.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If someone breaks into your house and you have a gun, you shoot to kill because otherwise it's a risk for you and your family.

Simple as that.

Agreed.

I've always slept with a gun within reach.

Now that I have a family I'm even more inclined to protect my home. That's my job to keep my family safe.
---

It's amazing how effective not being a piece of shit is as protecting you against being shot.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Problem is that the most effective area to aim for to stop the threat happen to be lethal. Aiming for limbs is difficult and it may not be effective at stopping the bad guy relative to aiming for center of mass.

You will never be tr a ined or taught to aim for the limbs. Ever. Its always center mass and shoot til threat is eliminated
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

democrats want that homeowner to have been defenseless

@Tmaster148 def has said it numerous times
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

AlephZero posted...

why did he have to murder those people

he should have called the police instead

Because castle doctrine and slow police response times.

On top of that, it's hard to say how someone is going to perform or react in a scary scenario like that. I would like to imagine that if I ever had to protect myself in that manner from a home invasion that I would not shoot to kill, but just immobilize the person. But I can't say if the combination of fear and adrenaline would allow me to be on point like that.

You shoot to STOP the threat.

What's also to stop them from coming back? They're already bold enough to attempt a burglary. I'd say he was right to shoot them.

BigSLM1993 posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

AlephZero posted...

why did he have to murder those people

he should have called the police instead

Because castle doctrine and slow police response times.

On top of that, it's hard to say how someone is going to perform or react in a scary scenario like that. I would like to imagine that if I ever had to protect myself in that manner from a home invasion that I would not shoot to kill, but just immobilize the person. But I can't say if the combination of fear and adrenaline would allow me to be on point like that.

You shoot to STOP the threat.

What's also to stop them from coming back? They're already bold enough to attempt a burglary. I'd say he was right to shoot them.

Of course he is right to shoot them. According to the story they had shot at him but one of their guns jammed.
---

I'm assuming they were trying to go out of my back door," the homeowner said, "so as they go through there I jumped in the closet and get my AK-47." He then found them on his patio, aimed his rifle and opened fire.

So how is he not getting charges? Normally isn't illegal to shoot at burglars running away?
---

ROBANN_88 posted...

they absolutely deserved it, but since he basically shot them when they were running away, that might cost him some jail time.

EDIT:
"it was determined that no criminal charges will be filed at this point. "

okay, i don't quite understand. i'm happy for him, but does Stand your Ground/Castle Doctrine/whatever still apply when they are no longer threathening him?

Just because they left the property doesn't mean that the threat is gone.
If the homeowner had done nothing, then he'd have two criminals with weapons pissed at him.
---

@Tmaster148 since you believe americans dont need guns to protect themselves...how should this man have protected themselves
---

AlephZero posted...

why did he have to murder those people

he should have called the police instead

https://img.memecdn.com/round-like-a-shot_o_1946725.jpg
---

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/e9/f6/aee9f6645e510d192c3504c003c0277d.jpg
---

LightHawKnight posted...

I'm assuming they were trying to go out of my back door," the homeowner said, "so as they go through there I jumped in the closet and get my AK-47." He then found them on his patio, aimed his rifle and opened fire.

So how is he not getting charges? Normally isn't illegal to shoot at burglars running away?

Just because they were "running away" doesn't necessarily mean they are no longer a threat.

Also it states that after he got his gun he found them on his patio, which means they were still on his property and therefore still a threat.

If they were like down the street or something, there may be a case, maybe.
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

I'm assuming they were trying to go out of my back door," the homeowner said, "so as they go through there I jumped in the closet and get my AK-47." He then found them on his patio, aimed his rifle and opened fire.

So how is he not getting charges? Normally isn't illegal to shoot at burglars running away?

Just because they were "running away" doesn't necessarily mean they are no longer a threat.

Also it states that after he got his gun he found them on his patio, which means they were still on his property and therefore still a threat.

If they were like down the street or something, there may be a case, maybe.

It normally does. Unless they are shooting as they are running, it usually means the threat is currently over.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

AlephZero posted...

why did he have to murder those people

he should have called the police instead

Because castle doctrine and slow police response times.

On top of that, it's hard to say how someone is going to perform or react in a scary scenario like that. I would like to imagine that if I ever had to protect myself in that manner from a home invasion that I would not shoot to kill, but just immobilize the person. But I can't say if the combination of fear and adrenaline would allow me to be on point like that.

You shoot to STOP the threat.

Right, but I don't want to kill someone if I have an opportunity not to.

Especially a burglar. To go on a little rant... I have a good friend that is a criminal defense attorney and another that is a DA. Both have said to me that 90% of the people they come across are people of happenstance and bad luck. People get desperate when they are hungry, scared, have no home, or a secure life. That can drive people to do all kinds of 'bad' things that they may not have ever considered doing if they had their basic needs met.

Anyway, that perspective has given me a lot of empathy towards people who commit certain crimes.

And yet the hungry never steal food.
https://pics.onsizzle.com/police-solve-case-of-the-missing-bacon-a-grand-rapids-31359015.png
---

LightHawKnight posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

I'm assuming they were trying to go out of my back door," the homeowner said, "so as they go through there I jumped in the closet and get my AK-47." He then found them on his patio, aimed his rifle and opened fire.

So how is he not getting charges? Normally isn't illegal to shoot at burglars running away?

Just because they were "running away" doesn't necessarily mean they are no longer a threat.

Also it states that after he got his gun he found them on his patio, which means they were still on his property and therefore still a threat.

If they were like down the street or something, there may be a case, maybe.

It normally does. Unless they are shooting as they are running, it usually means the threat is currently over.

Which is dumb af
---

LightHawKnight posted...

Twin3Turbo posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

I'm assuming they were trying to go out of my back door," the homeowner said, "so as they go through there I jumped in the closet and get my AK-47." He then found them on his patio, aimed his rifle and opened fire.

So how is he not getting charges? Normally isn't illegal to shoot at burglars running away?

Just because they were "running away" doesn't necessarily mean they are no longer a threat.

Also it states that after he got his gun he found them on his patio, which means they were still on his property and therefore still a threat.

If they were like down the street or something, there may be a case, maybe.

It normally does. Unless they are shooting as they are running, it usually means the threat is currently over.

It really depends on the situation

I mean lets say there's a situation where the dudes shot at him, ran away right quick for 5 seconds, and then turned back around and started shooting at him again. They were technically running away for those 5 seconds, but they were still a threat. Would the guy be wrong to shoot at them within those 5 seconds?

It's kinda a similar situation here. These dudes "ran away" but were ultimately still on his property when he re-found them. They had guns, they shot at him previously, they were still a threat. They weren't down the street or in the getaway car (hell they could still be a threat in the getaway car actually). It's not as cut and dry as "well they started running so you have to stop shooting".
---

MedzXVIII posted...

https://img.memecdn.com/round-like-a-shot_o_1946725.jpg

So, the secret is to say that you shot them, to get the police there fast!
---

Monolith1676 posted...

NeonOctopus posted...

This wouldn't have happened if the burglers had a gun

According to the article, both were armed.

This wouldn't have happened if the burglars guns had a gun.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

AlephZero posted...

why did he have to murder those people

he should have called the police instead

Because castle doctrine and slow police response times.

On top of that, it's hard to say how someone is going to perform or react in a scary scenario like that. I would like to imagine that if I ever had to protect myself in that manner from a home invasion that I would not shoot to kill, but just immobilize the person. But I can't say if the combination of fear and adrenaline would allow me to be on point like that.

You shoot to STOP the threat.

Right, but I don't want to kill someone if I have an opportunity not to.

Especially a burglar. To go on a little rant... I have a good friend that is a criminal defense attorney and another that is a DA. Both have said to me that 90% of the people they come across are people of happenstance and bad luck. People get desperate when they are hungry, scared, have no home, or a secure life. That can drive people to do all kinds of 'bad' things that they may not have ever considered doing if they had their basic needs met.

Anyway, that perspective has given me a lot of empathy towards people who commit certain crimes.

I totally agree with you on this, and would try to avoid killing someone if at all possible. Honestly I'd rather they take my stuff than have to kill them, but if I can get away with just injuring them I think that's the best scenario.

Besides, my family and I would still have to live in that house, I don't need to relive some guy gasping his last breath every time I walk past a certain hallway
---

they were on his patio still armed, they didn't leave his property
---

You know what's funny is sometimes I feel that perspective intruding on my gaming. Like right now I'm still playing Assassin's Creed, and the other night I was like "you know, that guard probably has a wife and kids, a mother and father...people are relying on this man to keep bringing home a paycheck and I just slit his throat because I needed to get down this hallway"
---

He knew the risk when he took the job eston.
---

That doesn't do much for his poor family, especially in the midst of the French Revolution
---

Good, you want to break into someone's house like that you are at their mercy. Those two wouldn't be dead if it wasn't for their poor decision making in the first place.
---

But isn't he defending a system that doesn't help families when the breadwinner gets their throat slit? I mean, if you're defending a system that specifically isn't out to help your family when you pass, I can't really sympathize with them when you do. Also his wife could probably sell her hair or something.
---