Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Kent Lufkin, Nov 12, 2007.
"...where he found two teenagers stealing guns from his rear bedroom, police said."
"The bullet hit a 17-year-old suspect who police said was armed at the time with the homeowner's own shotgun."
Goofus never locks up his guns when they're not in his immediate control. A burglar isn't going to find that loaded scattergun in the closet, is he?
"Realizing someone might be inside, the man armed himself with a .45-caliber weapon he had in his truck and entered the house,..."
Good thing he had a chance to run to his truck and retrieve his .45, and then go back and shoot the punk, huh? He should have just kept walking away, and called 911 on his cell. And presumably he has a carry permit, to keep a loaded gun in his truck, but the article didn't say.
"Gun rights advocates said the confrontation is a "textbook example" of why people should be legally allowed to carry firearms. "
Even if he skates on the legal charge, he's totally open to a civil lawsuit, for the reasons stated above. If he killed that kid (and even though he didn't, depending on the kid's record and family's wealth/connections), he could get totally screwed legally and financially. Even if he wins the lawsuit, it's gonna cost him big $$$$.
I'm always a little leery of embracing the "a gun is insurance" argument.
If a punk steals your smoke alarms, airbags, insurance documents, helmet, or outdoor gear, it's not likely to end up killing somebody. It's not like you can just leave 'em laying around until you need 'em.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for responsible gun ownership. I just don't think this is a shining example of responsibility.
And I thought this thread was done................
You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions in your post.
- You're assuming the fellow in Yakima knew his wife wasn't at home and in need of help.
- You're assuming the shotgun wasn't locked up. You know those gun cavinets & some of the cheaper safes can be opened by a robber in 20 to 30 minutes.
- You're assuming the robber that got shot didn't point the shotgun at him.
- You're assuming he entered only to protect property.
BTW- the Castle Doctrine gives a homeowner the right to do what he did. However you never know what a jury will do. In Yakima my money would be on the homeowner.
I don't know where you've come to the conclusion that I'm making any kind of "gun as insurance argument". You assume I haven't invested in a quality safe to secure any gun I might own. We all own things that if stolen could cause harm to another. Hell, if stolen my car could cause as much damage as any gun. My motorcycle, if stolen could lead to injury for the thief as well as someone else. Should I be held responsible if it's stolen and that occurs?
I'm amazed how often the victim of a crime is turned into the villian and the robber who initiates the incident becomes the victim.
Mike T, well said once again! Some of the cheaper safes can be opened in less than a minute. Even the best have weak spots.
uh, never mind.
You're right. I made a lot of assumptions without knowing the exact details of the incident. Sorry about that.
I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, just making the observation that this doesn't appear to be a clear-cut case of justifiable use-of-force.
How about this:
IF the homeowner was sure the burglars were the only ones in the house (ie no loved ones in danger), and IF he was able to remove himself from immediate danger (which sounds like the case here, since he had to go back to his truck to get his .45, and then go back inside the house to shoot the burglar), then the Castle Doctrine defense doesn't hold up.
I'm not a legal expert regarding gun laws, but Dave Workman (who was quoted in the story) is, and here are a few direct quotes from Dave (emphasis mine):
"Although citizens in Washington have no duty to retreat from a violent attack, it is also well established that this does not mean they have the latitude to thrust themselves unnecessarily in harm’s way. Responsible, legally-armed citizens are not a problem."
"Self-defense is not “taking the law into your own hands.” Rather, it is acting within the law in the face of imminent and unavoidable danger of grave bodily harm or death."
I shed no tears over a criminal who gets shot. They chose to commit a crime, and should suffer the consequences. And I don't believe that homeowner is a villain. In fact, I really hope he doesn't get screwed because of his actions, whether they were strictly legal, or not. I'm just not sure it's an air-tight defensible case if it goes to jury. That's all. I know I wouldn't want to be in that position.
Okay, I'll bite. Have you, and do you?
I'm torn between replying and not replying as this has gone way off the subject.
But there are times when I feel a need to speak. First, until the law changes I will use deadly force when faced with the same to myself or my loved ones.
Why? Because nobody else is gonna be able to protect me in time of danger. Not cops, not military, not the neighbor and certainly not Hillary. (pun intended, and a troll to boot)
Do I carry when I go fishing, hell no! If I thought I would have to, I wouldn't fish there.
Are my guns in my safe? Yes, and it has already survived one home break-in.
Do I care about what someone else might think, in particular someone who might not be pro-gun? No! Because those folks will do little if nothing about any injustice forced upon another person.
But they are always first to give their opinion about how others should act and live their lives... Give me a frickin' break....
I think the best fishing side arm when I get scared is a Francis... I got him free from the Kent animal shelter. He is a great fishing buddy but also has "street cred" with the riff raff types.... :thumb:
I liked that picture of those guys beating a dead horse.... but what does it really mean?
It is the guys from Office Space and they were actually beating a copier until someone photoshopped a horse over it.
Office Space? Their description of Michael Boulton as a 'no-talent ass-clown' just kills me!
Nate, you may be right, but gather the 'crime rate' in Texas has fallen (dramatically?) in Texas since 'everyone' has been allowed to carry 'a gun.'
That said, the only time I've experinced 'friendly fire was as a young teenager with my best friends Father on a river that flows into the Columbia. Can't remember the name of the river, save for it starts with the letter 'K.'
Anyway, Harry and I were fishing away and hear the crack of a rifle ... bullet zings over our heads. Bang goes the rifle again, with similar results. Harry was a long shoreman and had the lungs of a Chief Petty Officer and yells at the guy (to the effect) 'there are two of us down here, stop shooting.' Bang goes round number three.
Harry spots the guy and pulls his .357 ...... end result is Harry chased him up the hill (opposite side of the river) with wadcutters clicking at his heels.
That was impressive shooting .. (who ever he was) had to be aware that who ever was shooting back could hit him at will.
Your car is in my driveway, your boot is the one that kicked my door in, and your ass is in my house stealing (or whatever you might be doing in there) and I'm supposed to just walk down the street and call 911?
Umm....,Yes; Why not??
A few weeks ago my kids were home from school in the middle of the day on what was usually a school day, but due to a "Teachers Planning" day they had the day off.
They were in our family room playing video games when they heard some banging on our back door. My oldest boy (17) went to the door, pulled aside the curtain and saw two men trying to kick in our door. When the two men saw him they said "Ooops, wrong house." Ran and jumped into their car that was parked in front of our garage at the end of our drive way and sped off.
My son has had a lot of martial arts training and is 6' 3"+ tall and well over 250 lbs.. He's built like the proverbial brick sh-t house. He said he would have gone after them except that he was in his underwear.
Now an argument could be made that if he had a gun he could have shot them. But we don't, so that as far as I'm concerned was not an option, until they actually entered the house and my kids were trapped with no way out except to go past them. I told my kids that they should have run out the front door while calling the police. (Pants on or not.) They had no idea if the guys were armed, strung out on drugs or what. That goes double for my son going after them when they hadn't yet entered the house.
I'm not anti-gun but I think guns only belong in the hands of people that have training with them and then only when there's no other option. Some of you speak so casually about shooting someone. How many of you have seen what a gun does to a person thats been shot. It's not pretty sight. I've seen it first hand and it's a sight that still haunts me. It's nothing like you see on T.V. or in the movies. I don't want my kids to ever see such a thing.
So in a nut shell; Yes call the cops. They are professionals and are trained to handle the situation. That's what we pay them for.