Neighbors 'outraged' after man, 80, charged with shooting burglar

[AFPVet]

My point is that what happened in this case was the classic reason for the castle doctrine. The gun control angle does put an extra kink in it though. Still an argument can be made that gun rights should be inviolate just like speech rights. You lose your voting rights in most states when you become a convicted felon but not your free speech rights. Why should that one right out of the 10 bill of rights be treated differently?

Agreed... gun laws only affect the law abiding. Once you have paid your debt to society, all of your rights should be restored.

 

[bolil]

What if you incurred that debt using a firearm? Chicago Cops are notoriously dirty (which can work for you as well as against you).

 

[coastie]

What if you incurred that debt using a firearm? Chicago Cops are notoriously dirty (which can work for you as well as against you).

I'd be ok with that IF you were not convicted of a violent Felony, not the numerous non-violent ones that also disqualify you.

 

[chudrockz]

Yet another reason to repeal legislation passed in the heat of the moment.

Sounds like the ol' guy used his head and shot to wound.

Gun rights should only be rescinded on a case by case basis and then only for a finite time. Just because somebody has been convicted of a felony doesn't mean they're irresponsible when it comes to firearms. Nor should a felony conviction negate the right to protect ones self or property.

That's unfortunate, because "shooting to wound" is precisely the opposite of "using your head."

When you need to shoot, you do it to STOP THE THREAT. Not to wound.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

just because someone steals from you doesn't mean you have the authority to administer your own death penalty.

That is absolutely what that means.

 

[bolil]

I'd be ok with that IF you were not convicted of a violent Felony, not the numerous non-violent ones that also disqualify you.

I agree, like the drug offenses that remove your 2nd amendment right.

 

[juvanya]

just because someone steals from you doesn't mean you have the authority to administer your own death penalty.

Bullcrap. I dont break into houses because I dont know who has a gun or machete or chainsaw or whatever.

 

[coastie]

That's unfortunate, because "shooting to wound" is precisely the opposite of "using your head."

When you need to shoot, you do it to STOP THE THREAT. Not to wound.

I'll post this again:

Those that think you should "shoot to wound" have been watching way too many movies and TV. No law enforcement agency or private security agency, CCW class-the list goes on-EVER tells you to "shoot to wound". In the heat of the moment, you WILL more than likely miss.

You shoot center mass, every time. Center mass does not mean in the chest. It could be their head. Center mass refers to the CENTER of the MASS that is in your sight picture.

 

[Keith and stuff]

My point is that what happened in this case was the classic reason for the castle doctrine.

I support both stand your ground and castle doctrine but I don't see how either of those relates to this case. As far as I can tell, what he was charged with was related to the law that said he wasn't allowed to own a firearm. Both federal and state laws may apply in this case.

Still an argument can be made that gun rights should be inviolate just like speech rights.

I think, after probation, someone should be allowed to own firearms again. Some legislators tried to restore gun rights to people convicted of non-violent felons in NH this year but there was opposition. The public isn't with us, yet.

You lose your voting rights in most states when you become a convicted felon but not your free speech rights.

Felons are allowed to vote in most states. Heck, in VT and ME, felons may vote while in jail. States tend to have anti-voting laws in the South and some other parts of the country. My guess is some of these laws were put in place to lower the percentage of blacks that are allowed to vote.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

 

[jmdrake]

I support both stand your ground and castle doctrine but I don't see how either of those relates to this case. As far as I can tell, what he was charged with was related to the law that said he wasn't allowed to own a firearm. Both federal and state laws may apply in this case.

Right. I'm not arguing the specific facts of the law as charged. Just saying that this is an example of where the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws should apply. You are right that it's not relevant in that the homeowner wasn't charged with aggravated assault. But perhaps the castle doctrine is why he wasn't charged with that? Anyway, good examples are hard to come by sometimes.

I think, after probation, someone should be allowed to own firearms again. Some legislators tried to restore gun rights to people convicted of non-violent felons in NH this year but there was opposition. The public isn't with us, yet.

Felons are allowed to vote in most states. Heck, in VT and ME, felons may vote while in jail. States tend to have anti-voting laws in the South and some other parts of the country. My guess is some of these laws were put in place to lower the percentage of blacks that are allowed to vote.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

In my state you can petition to have rights restored including gun rights and voting rights. I'm just suggesting that if we go with the believe that the rights listed in the bill of rights are inviolate then they should be...well...inviolate. Okay, being in prison changes those rights somewhat. For example while you are incarcerated your room can be searched without a warrant. But as soon as you are released the 4th amendment applies to you (if it still applies to any U.S. citizens at all post the Patriot Act and the 2012 NDAA) and police have to go through the same procedures to search you as they would anyone else. It doesn't matter if you're in prison or on probation. Why should the right to self defense be any different? I mean I know why...but then again I don't.

 

[tod evans]

That's unfortunate, because "shooting to wound" is precisely the opposite of "using your head."

When you need to shoot, you do it to STOP THE THREAT. Not to wound.

I too was taught to shoot "center mass" in the service and I'm certain were I engaged in a life or death situation that training would kick in.

I put myself in the 80yo guys shoes as I read the story.....A kid breaks into my home to steal booze....To me this isn't life or death, no threat of "imminent danger"........I personally (I'm a decent shot) wouldn't choose to shoot at vital organs.... In my house the farthest you could have a clear shot is less than 30 feet so unless I was under attack I would aim carefully and wound.

That's me......I'm not advocating anybody else to behave in this manner, in fact I agree that ALL professional training organizations teach their students to aim for the biggest target.

Adrenaline does effect both judgement and aim and the safest lesson to teach is the "center mass" scenario.

Once again; For me.......If I were an 80yo guy trying to stop a kid from steeling my booze and all I had was a pistol I would shoot to wound.

 

[chudrockz]

I too was taught to shoot "center mass" in the service and I'm certain were I engaged in a life or death situation that training would kick in.

I put myself in the 80yo guys shoes as I read the story.....A kid breaks into my home to steal booze....To me this isn't life or death, no threat of "imminent danger"........I personally (I'm a decent shot) wouldn't choose to shoot at vital organs.... In my house the farthest you could have a clear shot is less than 30 feet so unless I was under attack I would aim carefully and wound.

That's me......I'm not advocating anybody else to behave in this manner, in fact I agree that ALL professional training organizations teach their students to aim for the biggest target.

Adrenaline does effect both judgement and aim and the safest lesson to teach is the "center mass" scenario.

Once again; For me.......If I were an 80yo guy trying to stop a kid from steeling my booze and all I had was a pistol I would shoot to wound.

To each their own. However:

1.) Unless you flip on some lights, it's probably going to be pretty dark
2.) Unless the uninvited guest is really, really stoned, he's probably going to be moving quickly

If and when I find a masked hoodlum in my living room at 4am, I'll feel free to ask them what they're purpose is. Whether they can answer before expiring after six 12 gauge slugs to the chest, I dunno.

 

[Kingfisher]

just because someone steals from you doesn't mean you have the authority to administer your own death penalty.

I would expect this type of post on an Obama forum. Or a Santorum forum.

 

[Sam I am]

I would expect this type of post on an Obama forum. Or a Santorum forum.

Funny you should think that, because what I said, was a very "Pro-Rule-of-Law" thing to say, and of all the candidates, Ron Paul has been the ONLY one to be outspoken in favor of the rule of law.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Why should that one right out of the 10 bill of rights be treated differently?

Because in the Bizzaro Land we currently inhabit, rights are like people, all are equal only some are more equal than others.

 

[seapilot]

Always better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.