Burglars lock homeowner in gun closet with predictably hilarious results

posted at 8:31 am on May 18, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with… oh, the heck with it. We now take you to the Lone Star State.

The victim of an armed home invasion in Houston has turned the tables on the brazen intruders after they stuffed him into a closet that turned out to be the place where he stores his gun.

Police say it all started at around 2pm Tuesday when three men broke into a home in the 8200 block of Braeburn Valley Drive and assaulted the resident.

After a brief scuffle, the hapless perpetrators shoved the man into a closet, not knowing that there was a gun in there.

For the benefit of the usual list of detractors, yes… there’s a definite advantage when the criminals turn out to be complete idiots. Or at least really poor planners. But in defense of the system here, it was still three against one and they were armed also. We now return you to our story, already in progress.

When the homeowner thought the burglars had left, he went downstairs, carrying his gun in case the suspects were still around, the Houston Chronicle reported.

On the first floor, the man confronted one of his assailant and the two exchanged gunfire, according to police.

The resident, who shares the house with his parents, escaped unharmed, but the armed suspect was much the worse for wear after being struck in the shoulder and leg.

He fled on foot down the street, but did not get far before he collapsed. His two suspected accomplices took off from the scene in a Chevrolet Tahoe.

The article finishes by going into a brief discussion of the “castle doctrine” in Texas, related to various “stand your ground” laws. I’m not entirely sure why that even needed to come into the coverage, beyond their pointing out that the homeowner will face no charges for shooting the suspect. Even if you wanted to fire up a debate about when and where it’s justified for a law abiding gun owner to open fire on a bad guy, surely the moment you find yourself locked in a closet in your own home by armed intruders is one where any conceivable line has been crossed.

But still, if you have a gun in your home, you’re far more likely to wind up shooting yourself or somebody that… oh, forget it. I give up.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Yes , you’re certifiable. You don’t get to decide what happens in other people’s homes. You don’t know who these burglars are. You don’t know what drugs they’re on. You don’t know if they did not have plans to go back to the closet and kill the innocent home owner. You don’t know. Take your BS and shove it.

BTW I don’t think you realize: NOT EVERYONE THAT IS SHOT DIES.
MY goodness the stupid is strong in you.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:08 AM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Any home invader deserves death. Were you sick the day they discussed justified homicide at Harvard Law?

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Spider79 on May 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Still a W.I.P., then. :)

OldEnglish on May 18, 2013 at 10:13 AM

it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

You should sue Harvard Law for turning out so flipping stupid.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Anyone threatening the safety of my children deserves every measure of hell I unleash upon them. End of discussion.

Bruce MacMahon on May 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Yes.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

.
I hear violins, Hollywood violins… tear-jerking, emotional violins…
.
.
.
.
Nah, not really, but next, I bet, is “the unfair, evil, prejudiced system made him do it.”

ExpressoBold on May 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Seriously, read those Harvard Law books I assume you bought. If anyone invades my home I’m shooting first, second, and last. I will not be taking the time to determine motive or opportunity. I will be calling the authorities afterwards to come and clean up the mess and buying more ammunition the day after that.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

MY goodness the stupid is strong in you.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:08 AM

So let’s see, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance that the Home invader is an unemployed father at his wits end who has turned to crime, rather than the welfare state

OR

There is a 1 if 3 chance that the Home Invader is a career criminal with a history of doing violence to homeowners when he doesn’t find the valuables he is looking for.

And I should Risk my Life or Shoot the Perp based on which criteria?

You are so right, The Stupid is Strong for This One.

jaydee_007 on May 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM

I am working on that and intend to pay my parents back

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM

I have an idea for that. Deny knowing them. Probably the greatest gift you could ever give them.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

The person in the home could be a 12 year old, or a paraplegic, or a 90 year old, or or or…..

We don’t have to live in your fantasy world. I don’t have to determine the motivations or backgrounds of someone who comes into my home without permission.

Go do some research and as you went to Harvard Law that should be second nature to you. Tell us about the chances that a burglar is a good person versus a drug addict.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:24 AM

I am working on that and intend to pay my parents back

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:10 AM

At 8 bucks an hour and 28 hours a week I would you suggest your mom being as patient as Obama is with Syria.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM

test

KCB on May 18, 2013 at 10:32 AM

He didn’t come out until he thought the 3 had left. So, the man certainly didn’t seek confrontation. Too bad he didn’t shoot all 3 and be done with it.

Blake on May 18, 2013 at 8:39 AM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Yeah, the most they should have done is shot them with non-lethal skeet shotguns!

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Snicker.

slickwillie2001 on May 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM

you passed

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Snicker.

slickwillie2001 on May 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM

~~Sigh~~
/

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

You really know next to nothing, don’t you!

Here’s a hint, stay out of conversations wherein your Colossal Ignorance will become completely obvious.

jaydee_007 on May 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM

you passed

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM

B+ ?

viking01 on May 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Texas gun safe = closet.

There are 7 closets in my Texas house. You could safely put me in only 2 of them.

Spider79 on May 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Sounds like a good excuse to acquire a couple of additional guns. :)

Midas on May 18, 2013 at 10:41 AM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

If an armed burglar is supposedly an “unemployed father”, I’d like to know why he hasn’t already sold the gun. In fact, by your logic, he’s immoral for having it in the first place, so by doing so he can feed his family and become morally clean, all at one stroke.

As for an “unarmed” burglar, we had a case in point here in Ohio three years ago. A mentally-unbalanced individual broke into a home, murdered two women and an 8-year-old boy, and abducted a 13-year-old girl, whom he kept chained up in the basement of his mother’s house five houses away for three days, intending to use her as his “sex slave” and then sell her to “human traffickers”. (I despise that latter euphemism BTW; they are slavers, as much as the ones who brought Africans here chained in the holds of slave ships.) He was caught, and his “slave” rescued, when someone told the authorities they’d seen him creeping around the crime scene house the morning before the bodies were discovered.

He was 22 years old. His only weapon? A pocketknife with a (legal) 2 1/2″ blade. Which he used to cut his victims’ throats.

Under Ohio’s “castle doctrine” law, I am entitled to assume a home invader, burglar, housebreaker, or whatever is armed and willing to be dangerous until proven otherwise. And to react appropriately.

The above case shows the wisdom of that law. And the lack of realism in your position.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it!

claudius on May 18, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The above case shows the wisdom of that law. And the lack of realism in your position.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM

The “realism” of his position is ignorance. This is a man (boy? infant?) who claims to have graduated from Harvard Law. No way someone graduates from Harvard Law and has such an abysmal understanding of a homeowner’s rights concerning home invaders.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

They may not deserve it but they sure as hell earned it. Semper Fi

1sttofight on May 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM

BTW I don’t think you realize: NOT EVERYONE THAT IS SHOT DIES.
MY goodness the stupid is strong in you.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Remember, the mother and two children in Georgia who were home when a guy broke in. He knew the home was occupied. This tells me the burglar is particularly dangerous.

He chased them up 3 floors and they hid in a closet in the attic. When he found them, the mother shot him 5 or 6 times point blank. He still managed to get up, run out, got into his truck and drive away. Luckily, he crashed about 2 blocks away. Last I heard, he’s still alive and the mother needs a larger capacity magazine.

Blake on May 18, 2013 at 10:50 AM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Good. Frickin’. Grief.

Not only should you avoid using, or even talking, about firearms, I strongly recommend you not attempt to drive on public thoroughfares.

Those other big metal things on them are called “vehicles”, and if you hit one, or get hit by one, you could be badly hurt. It’s called “kinetic energy”. Which is what any projectile-launching device, firearm or otherwise, delivers to whatever the projectile hits.

BTW, I recommend skeet loads (no. 7 shot, light charge) to women friends who want to use their husband’s shotgun for home defense but can’t handle the recoil of a heavy 12-gauge load. At inside-the-house range, a charge of no. 7 will make a hole like a mousehole in the target’s skin- and then spread out inside, shredding the vitals.

In forensic pathology, we call these “rathole wounds”. I’ve done the ballistics evidence on a few postmortems in which this was the cause of death of a burglar or would-be rapist, who was no doubt surprised as Hell when the “skeet load” killed him stone-cold dead.

Might I suggest more study before you embarrass yourself further on this subject? Or do you believe that reading about guns also sullies your spotless mind the same way owning one would?

eon

out!

eon on May 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I don’t think

partisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Edited for Reality.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 10:54 AM

But still, if you have a gun in your home, you’re far more likely to wind up shooting yourself or somebody that… oh, forget it. I give up.

It’s like this — if it wasn’t a shotgun, then it’s just wrong. Did you know you can fire a shotgun through a closed door? Perfect weapon in this case! I know, it’s a little complicated. Joe Biden can explain it all to you.

Paul-Cincy on May 18, 2013 at 10:56 AM

nonpartisan proves what I have been saying all my life, being college graduate does not prove that you are smart.

1sttofight on May 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The “realism” of his position is ignorance. This is a man (boy? infant?) who claims to have graduated from Harvard Law. No way someone graduates from Harvard Law and has such an abysmal understanding of a homeowner’s rights concerning home invaders.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

With all due respect, you may be underestimating the effect of liberalism within the curriculum at Harvard Law.

/s <<< maybe

Yoop on May 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed

partisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Yeah, every time someone breaks into my house I ask them if they are carrying a gun. And they always tell me.

A+

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Fists kill more people
Than rifles in any year.
Unarmed men can kill.

Obviously, each situation is unique. But, generally speaking, a person who breaks into your home is a threat to your life, and responding with deadly force is justified. One should always apply the minimum amount of force required to subdue the threat, but if an robber was in my house and was refusing to retreat, I would aim for center mass, whether I saw a gun or not.

Haiku Guy on May 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

They weren’t burglars, they were armed home-invasion robbers. In Texas. A very, very dangerous animal, in my opinion.

Socratease on May 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

This is the vomit-brained, willfully evil mentality that makes the criminal the victim and the victim filth that deserves death. The state has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect its citizens (which a “Harvard Law grad” should know) and disarming the law-abiding only results in the promotion of crime, as it has everywhere this fascistic gun-grabbing enslavement of the population occurs.

ebrown2 on May 18, 2013 at 11:21 AM

nonpartisan proves what I have been saying all my life, being college graduate does not prove that you are smart.

1sttofight on May 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I agree. My son, who had staunch conservative views all through high school, has developed liberal tendencies since graduating from college. He recently moved to Seattle, and regularly points out with pride that Seattle is the “2nd most educated city in the US.”

I have to keep reminding him that education does not automatically confer wisdom upon the recipient.

LooseCannon on May 18, 2013 at 11:40 AM

nonpartisan proves what I have been saying all my life, being college graduate does not prove that you are smart.

1sttofight on May 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Yeah, well, if nonpartisan is an actual Harvard law grad, then I’m Derek ****ing Jeter. I wouldn’t even believe he has a law degree from the University of Phoenix given how little he seems to understand about legal processes.

Good Solid B-Plus on May 18, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

they stuffed him in a closet, don’t seem like they were gonna kill him

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM

It doesn’t matter. Once you cross the line into my home, uninvited, I can only assume that you are there to harm me or mine in some fashion. I will respond in a decisive and lethal fashion. Period.

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

I have no need or requirement to determine whether your intentions are otherwise than dangerous to me and mine once you enter my home uninvited. If you enter my home uninvited when I am there, you had best be prepared to meet your maker or surrender VERY quickly and meekly. I am sovereign in my home and *any* invasion will be met with decisive and lethal force. Period.

BTW, I don’t care why someone has broken into a home or stolen anything. It is a crime and should be punished appropriately by the state. The state should never allow compassion to enter into its deliberations on punishing crime. It bears the sword for the protection of its citizens, not a comfy cushion. That’s what “equality under the law” means.

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 11:48 AM

The resident, who shares the house with his parents, escaped unharmed, but the armed suspect was much the worse for wear after being struck in the shoulder and leg.

Headshots, people, headshots.

kurtzz3 on May 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM

You put on your war paint and come busting in my house then anything goes. No quarter given or expected.

tommyboy on May 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

In a home invasion scenario, you don’t have time for Twenty Questions. There isn’t time to figure out what the burglar’s background is.

If you have a family in your home. and there’s an intruder who has broken in, you have to assume the worst. There’s too much at stake. And the homeowner is not obligated to determine what events led the intruder to break into his home.

In THIS incident, in any event, the burglars were plural – unlikely to be one desperate, down-on-his-luck-dad – had already shown themselves to be armed and violent.

The_Jacobite on May 18, 2013 at 11:57 AM

it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Under Texas law, he wouldn’t get very far with a self-defense claim.

The_Jacobite on May 18, 2013 at 12:01 PM

BTW I don’t think you realize: NOT EVERYONE THAT IS SHOT DIES.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Though, generally that’s the fault of the shooter in choice of weapon or their skill. Just saying.

if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Wow, that’s a stupid statement. Someone in commission of a felony has no legal recourse to any “defense”. (He also generally can’t exercise a warranty or guarantee, nor profit in any fashion from the felony.)

And it sure isn’t a dinner invitation and a chance to meet your teenage daughter.

Dirty Creature on May 18, 2013 at 9:00 AM

If I had a teenage daughter, I don’t think he’d appreciate the invitation – since she’d be of the same attitude about home invaders. *predatory grin*

I didn’t think they were that stupid.

cozmo on May 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Oh, yes, they are. I’ve seen them argue it time and time again.

Texas gun safe = closet.

Spider79 on May 18, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Heh.

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 12:08 PM

The report is that he lives with his parents.
Sounds like a very good, protective son.
Wonder how nonplussed would protect HIS folks in a situation like that.
Talk it over ???

pambi on May 18, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Hey NP: Remember in law school when they taught you that under English Common Law there were four so called ‘capital’ crimes; i.e., if convicted for them, one could be put to death?

1. Murder
2. Arson
3. Rape
and

wait for it . . .

wait for it . . .

4. BURGLARY

The crime being defined as the “nighttime breaking and entering into an occupied dwelling.” Did say whether the perp was armed or not. Man’s home is his castle and all that . . .

BigAlSouth on May 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Nobody cares what you think.

Aviator on May 18, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Well, I’m sure it was just a misunderstanding, and they had just gone to the wrong address.

Another Drew on May 18, 2013 at 12:16 PM

I am entitled to assume a home invader, burglar, housebreaker, or whatever is armed and willing to be dangerous until proven otherwise.

eon on May 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM

And, there’s only one way to really prove otherwise: strip and cavity search after being cuffed to ensure no weapons and total subdual. Well, there’s one other way: he’s room temperature. Ergo – not really at all, until the situation is totally resolved.

One should always apply the minimum amount of force required to subdue the threat,

Haiku Guy on May 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Sorry, NO. One should use an overwhelming amount of force to end the confrontation decisively, and to prevent future risk to the victim. If that subdues him, fine. If it kills him, fine. It’s not my job to minimize damage to the felon.

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

That’s a decision best left to home owners.

jhffmn on May 18, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Here’s a hint, stay out of conversations wherein your Colossal Ignorance will become completely obvious.

jaydee_007 on May 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM

That pretty much limits him to conversations that start with “Would you like fries with that?”

Aviator on May 18, 2013 at 12:33 PM

I do. It’s considered a violent and serious crime for a reason. You never know if they are going to kill the homeowner.

Blake on May 18, 2013 at 8:46 AM

they stuffed him in a closet, don’t seem like they were gonna kill him

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM

They could have decided to get the man out later and get rid of the sole witness.

When you threaten others with deadly violence, there is no expectation that those you’ve threatened will show mercy. You’ve crossed a line.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM

eon on May 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM

thank you … I was unaware of this ….
wife doesn’t like the .45acp .. not even fond of the 9mm
she does like the .22 / .22 mag …. but if I can get her to ‘
like to 20 ga w/7 shot .. even better …

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Headshots, people, headshots.

kurtzz3 on May 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM

nope .. center body mass shooting … better hits … more vitals …

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

Are you insane? I don’t care what the reason is, armed or unarmed you break into my HOME, you should probably come armed. And that’s not just some macho, internet tough guy stuff. It’s my HOME and I don’t care what the possible reason is for breaking into to someone’s home with the intent to take something – ANYTHING – that I earned or jeopardize my family in any way.

I don’t care. There is a reason why intelligent states have generous Castle doctrine laws. My home is where my family is safe, and I am not going to check if someone is armed first. It was 2 pm. A child could have been returning from school, to find 3 men in the home.

And to think I might get someone on the jury like you… Since I live in mA, I may very well get 12 like you, but since I do work for a living, I’m confident I can pay for my own lawyer who is competent.

An attitude like that is simply stunning.

Starving my arse. More than half the damn country lives off of the labor of others, and with rampant EBT abuse, any claims of starving families are ridiculous.

As for minimum force, I am quite confident and have had the training and experience to do that if I so choose. Not everyone has. And I will eliminate any possible threat to my children in the fastest way possible. Period.

reaganaut on May 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM

As for minimum force, I am quite confident and have had the training and experience to do that if I so choose. Not everyone has. And I will eliminate any possible threat to my children in the fastest way possible. Period.

reaganaut on May 18, 2013 at 1:02 PM

I also believe I have the training … I just choose not to use it … overwhelming force. no mercy, surrender or die. total destruction of the bad guys …
of course I have been told that if I took their heads and put them on pikes in the front yard – that MIGHT be over the top.

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 1:07 PM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

If you found yourself thrown into a pit with three starving tigers, and you with a firearm, would you shoot them to save your life? They don’t have guns after all…

dominigan on May 18, 2013 at 1:09 PM

…He never got beyond the lobby, so the 500 or more potential victims inside were never shot.
 
dentarthurdent on April 3, 2013 at 6:16 PM

 
Sure.. That happened…then.
Glad that’s how that particular one turned out…
 
verbaluce on April 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM

rogerb on May 18, 2013 at 1:11 PM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

If you found a rattlesnake in your child’s bathroom, ready to strike at your daughter, and you had a weapon, would you kill the snake or worry about its offspring in its nest?

dominigan on May 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I don’t think burglars deserve death
 
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

 
+1, and I lock my doors because I can’t come up with a better warning.
 
(Love your work.)

rogerb on May 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM

they stuffed him in a closet, don’t seem like they were gonna kill him

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:48 AM

They stuffed him in a closet with a gun. Those things are dangerous, man. /

Ronnie on May 18, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Liberals love to pontificate on academic concerns while ignoring those of real victim facing violence and death from evil attackers who sought them out as targets. Only an uncaring ignorant fool would worry about the plight of a violent attacker instead of that of the victim.

It makes you wonder about the evil within nonpartisan that it mentally allies itself with violent criminals instead of those whose lives are in danger.

dominigan on May 18, 2013 at 1:19 PM

of course I have been told that if I took their heads and put them on pikes in the front yard – that MIGHT be over the top.

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Depends whose on the jury, but you’re right. Better to let the local LEO’s mop up the blood.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 1:22 PM

To suddenly find someone in your house that you don’t know at 2:00 AM is grounds for shooting them no matter the reason they are there. If you are a capable shot then you might aim to not kill them but that is a stupid thing to do. If it is total darkness what option does anyone have? Do you liberals think that you can reason with them? Do you think they broke into your house to get a drink or for a chat? They are there are there for one reason only and that is to rob and maybe do harm to you. There are no GOOD burglars!

inspectorudy on May 18, 2013 at 1:22 PM

(Love your work.)

rogerb on May 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Cue up Rolling Stones Sympathy For The Devil.

John the Libertarian on May 18, 2013 at 1:25 PM

nope .. center body mass shooting … better hits … more vitals …

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Your follow-up is a headshot. “more vitals” heh :D

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

If someone invades my home with a gun or any weapon the LEAST pain he might suffer is being shot with rock salt and bacon rind loads from a shotgun. I wouldn’t stop shooting until he stops fleeing. There is a special place in hell for these worthless b@$turds who will invade someones home. By the way not all of us who earn $ 8.00 an hour have partaken of the Kool-Aid.

hamradio on May 18, 2013 at 1:29 PM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed

partisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Yeah, every time someone breaks into my house I ask them if they are carrying a gun. And they always tell me.

A+

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Well what if they were nude???

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM

CW on May 18, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Good book: Thank God I Had a Gun, by Chris Bird (available on Amazon.com; true stories of people who defended themselves).

Burglars should indeed be shot. They invade one’s home in order to take whatever they please, and may commit arson or murder to conceal evidence or eliminate witnesses.

About nine years ago, an elderly couple who were among my parents’ longest-time friends returned home after a party and came face-to-face with a burglar in their living room.

The burglar shot the 83-year-old husband to death in front of the wife.

Even when blood isn’t shed, the harm that a burglar does includes making people feel unsafe and violated for years to come, and some victims never get over it.

The larger point is that it’s way past time for criminals to be afraid that they will be hurt or killed. Law-abiding people have been afraid long enough.

KyMouse on May 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Your follow-up is a headshot. “more vitals” heh :D

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM

2 shots center mass … 1 shot to the head … and yes more vitals
they might be liberals … head shot= rounds Ricochet off rocks between the ears.

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Law-abiding people have been afraid long enough.

KyMouse on May 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Exactly.

CW on May 18, 2013 at 1:35 PM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Right, not EVERY burglar who breaks into your home will kill you.

So you should wait, if they kill you, then you should… wait, you’re dead, never mind, you can’t do anything then.

But you shouldn’t do anything before that in case they don’t kill you… wait and see if they kill you and never do anything to defend yourself.

So burglars shouldn’t be killed; but homeowners being burgled should be killed if the burglar wants to, and nobody should ever try to stop them.

Your argument, such as it is; is that you support burglar’s right to live OVER innocent civilians.

Why do you respect criminals more than non-criminals?

In my mind, I’d say the innocent homeowner should take the first shot; as I respect the innocent civilian over the criminal.

Please explain why this is wrong and I should respect the criminal over the innocent homeowner.

gekkobear on May 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM

they might be liberals … head shot= rounds Ricochet off rocks between the ears.

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM

That’s exactly what I thought you meant! ;)

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 1:42 PM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Oh yeah, like the starving family with the unemployed psycho dad is going to miss that lifestyle.

Ronnie on May 18, 2013 at 1:49 PM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

You have to be the stupidest f#$king dolt on the entire interwebz.

Walter Sobchak on May 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM

conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Dudes, macho don’t work. Take from some one who has been there.

Shoot center mass until the threat has ended. Anything else you are liable for.

cozmo on May 18, 2013 at 1:56 PM

If that poor, unemployed father trying to feed his family is wanting compassion, he should go to the Fluke-ing food bank. The minute he breaks into my house, he becomes a deadly threat to me and my family. I do not have the luxury of judging his intentions. I must assume he means us harm, and I will use any means at my disposal to end that threat – gun, machete, butcher knife, scalding water, baseball bat, or bare hands.

So your poor innocent burglar has the choice. He could stay the heck out of my house. But once he breaks in, he’s made his choice – and made mine for me.

There are more home invasions in places without castle doctrine.

Adjoran on May 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Liberals love to pontificate on academic concerns while ignoring those of real victim facing violence and death from evil attackers who sought them out as targets. Only an uncaring ignorant fool would worry about the plight of a violent attacker instead of that of the victim.

It makes you wonder about the evil within nonpartisan that it mentally allies itself with violent criminals instead of those whose lives are in danger.

dominigan on May 18, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Progressives love criminals, and hate to see them come to grief, for three basic reasons.

1. Progressives hate our society, and want to see it in ruins. As such, they empathize with anyone who strikes out against that society. They view violent criminals as their front line “soldiers” in this undeclared war… on the rest of us. (With apologies to real soldiers, here and everywhere; this crime lab geek knows you’d eat these jerks for breakfast.)

2. Progressives see crime as a “reasonable” redress of the inequalities they perceive in society. That is, criminal = Robin Hood; taking from the “rich”, and giving to the “poor”, i.e. himself. As long as the “rich” lose, progressives are happy. (Unless of course they’re the victim of the crime.)

3. Progressives believe that they are natural leaders, and that violent people are inherently stupid and thus yearning to be led. See (1); to them, criminals are their natural “followers”. Remember that SDS tried to do business with the original Black Panthers on this basis; they forget how badly that ended. Hint; the SLA/Patty Hearst imbroglio was part of the blowback, along with the Zebra murders in LA. (Yes, I know NoI was directly involved in those, but it began with BP “defectors” to that group.)

To progressives, every violent criminal is Dennis Moore;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w

The trouble is, he was a result of John Cleese & Co.’s fevered imaginations.

Real criminals generally don’t give a sh!t about lupins, or even know what one is.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Pretty much proof that at least this particular Lib is mentally challenged and completely incapable of logical thought.

climbnjump on May 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Chalk one up for the good guys (with guns).

Albert Arthur on May 18, 2013 at 2:17 PM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

So Dad arms himself and breaks into a house, voluntarily putting himself in harm’s way, inviting potentially lethal response, leaving behind a starving widow and starving children to fend for themselves, because “he’s unemployed and at his wits end in finding options”?

How about food stamps? Is there anyone in Obama’s America who can’t get those those days?

How about knocking on the front door and asking for help for his starving family?

Dad is beyond wit’s end… he’s entered The Nonpartisan Zone.

de rigueur on May 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM

it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Stupid. The burglar could make no such ‘technical’ argument.

If a woman is being raped and grabs a brick and hits her rapist over the head, is he innocent of murder if he strangles her in response?

You’ve never sat a single minute in a law class in your life.

Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

So fvcking what? He has no right to enter the home of another and steal their food or property. Home owners do not have to wait to find out if ‘wits end’ is only there to empty their pantry.

Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

You don’t think at all but just go by your feelings.

chemman on May 18, 2013 at 2:27 PM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

And, shooting blanks can’t kill anyone either. Just ask Brandon Lee or Jon-Erik Hexum.

Oh, wait…

Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 2:29 PM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisaned on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

While we are speculating maybe if Carthage had beaten Rome we’d have world peace now and wouldn’t have to worry about criminals.

chemman on May 18, 2013 at 2:30 PM

it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Yeah, it’s always a risk when you leave the bad guy breathing. Better finish him before the lawyers come. Good point.

Ronnie on May 18, 2013 at 2:31 PM

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Stupid. The burglar could make no such ‘technical’ argument.

If a woman is being raped and grabs a brick and hits her rapist over the head, is he innocent of murder if he strangles her in response?

You’ve never sat a single minute in a law class in your life.

Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM

nonpartisan was busy. He asked me to ask you. What if the rapist didn’t have a girlfriend and was just socially awkward? She shouldn’t kill him just for taking a little trim.

I told him don’t mess with RWM and he said “go for it anyway.”

arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Headshots, people, headshots.

kurtzz3 on May 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Depends on the state you live in. Arizona only allows torso shots. You can’t intentionally shoot to kill. My CCW instructor recommended +P hollow points for personal protective rounds. I noted that a torso shot (center mass) using what he recommended would most likely kill the perp. He said that was true but only torso shots were considered legal in Arizona.

chemman on May 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM

what if you know for a fact that the burglar is unarmed, would you kill him?

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Yes and good luck proving in court I knew for a fact he was unarmed.

Moral of the story, if you break into a home prepare to get shot.

jhffmn on May 18, 2013 at 2:49 PM

I can’t imagine anyone successfully moving me into a closet (despite the fact that I also have a gun closet). I was raised to stand my ground and never move from crime scene one to crime scene two.

Home invasion robbery is terrifying. This is not running into a tweaker who is there for drug money but is too brain damaged to realize you were home. Home invasion could make a person snap. I’m surprised we don’t hear about homeowners turning into bathsalts style face eating zombies.

This victim should be applauded for protecting his parents’ pad and not eating any faces.

tuffy on May 18, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Oh please don’t throw me into that brier patch!

Some of you are too young for that quotation, and it is officially not PC so it is no longer allowed to be taught in our socialist government schools.

Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 3:10 PM

You can’t intentionally shoot to kill.

chemman on May 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM

OK, if that’s really the law there (and I doubt it is), that is one of the STUPIDEST laws in the country, by far. If what you mean is that a jury can be roped into believing that you were ready to kill anything that came along because you had “intent to kill” (thereby hurting your self-defense claim), then yes you are correct. That isn’t the same thing, however, and juries are (outside of blue zones) moving away from that sort of stupidity due to castle doctrines and “stand your ground” legislation.

All other things being equal, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. (Of course, it would be nice if I could then sue or otherwise penalize the morons on the jury if they did convict me of a wrongful death on the basis that I shot a home invader “with intent to kill”.)

Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 3:10 PM

I recognize it. ;)

GWB on May 18, 2013 at 3:26 PM

No way someone graduates from Harvard Law and has such an abysmal understanding of a homeowner’s rights concerning home invaders.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Barack Hussein Obama. mmm mmm mmm

jdkchem on May 18, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Depends on the state you live in. Arizona only allows torso shots. You can’t intentionally shoot to kill. My CCW instructor recommended +P hollow points for personal protective rounds. I noted that a torso shot (center mass) using what he recommended would most likely kill the perp. He said that was true but only torso shots were considered legal in Arizona.

chemman on May 18, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Bull….

jdkchem on May 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM

No way someone graduates from Harvard Law and has such an abysmal understanding of a homeowner’s rights concerning home invaders.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Barack Hussein Obama. mmm mmm mmm

jdkchem on May 18, 2013 at 3:42 PM

With Affirmative Action aka racism, who knows.

slickwillie2001 on May 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I don’t think burglars deserve death

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Anyone attempting to make another a slave deserves death.

When one steals from someone else they are effectively making slave of the victim,who will have to apply the wages of his labor to replace the item(s) stolen.

Stealing another’s labor is slavery.

soundingboard on May 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Barack Hussein Obama. mmm mmm mmm

jdkchem on May 18, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Good point, but there is also a difference between knowing and caring. Obama may have a basic understanding of the law and self defense in the home, but he obviously thinks such legal standards should be changed if he does.

NotCoach on May 18, 2013 at 3:52 PM

a burglar could be a father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family. Not every burglar is a violent, armed psychotic rapist.

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 9:01 AM

There’s already an options for a starving family.
The USDA calls that option food stamps.

soundingboard on May 18, 2013 at 3:55 PM

from my understanding, a skeet gun would lack killing power as its not built to kill

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

My God. You truly are an ignorant half-wit.

soundingboard on May 18, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Stupid. The burglar could make no such ‘technical’ argument.

If a woman is being raped and grabs a brick and hits her rapist over the head, is he innocent of murder if he strangles her in response?

You’ve never sat a single minute in a law class in your life.

Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 2:25 PM

are you not aware of the heat of the moment issues

if a rapist rapes a woman and then leaves, and the woman grabs a gun and goes after him and then shoots him, she can be convicted of murder and self-defense would no longer apply

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

My God. You truly are an ignorant half-wit.

soundingboard on May 18, 2013 at 4:18 PM

ohmygod, I should die because I didn’t know what skeet shooting was

sorry I’m not a bumblehick

nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3