We're 8 pages into the thread broceritops, I quoted a post that was general use of guns for sense defense - not about this particular case. So why don't you sit down, get off your false sense of legitimate argument and go have a popsicle, okay brochacho?
not too sure about him being out if he kept his trap shut. 1, he did not call until later, 2, he put the barrel of the gun beneath her chin point blank and fired, hard to argue that shot was justified. 3, he moved the bodies disturbing evidence.
Again, if he had said not a word, he'd be a completely free man most likely.
Wetzel said that while the shootings happened on Thursday, Smith waited until Friday to report the deaths, explaining that "he didn't want to trouble us on a holiday."
In the complaint, Smith said he was in his basement when he heard a window breaking upstairs, followed by footsteps that eventually approached the basement stairwell. Smith said he fired when Brady came into view from the waist down.
After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor.
"I want him dead," the complaint quoted Smith telling an investigator.
Smith said he dragged Brady's body into his basement workshop, then sat down on his chair. After a few minutes, Kifer began coming down the stairs and he shot her as soon as her hips appeared, he said.
After shooting her with both the Mini 14 and the .22-caliber revolver, he dragged her next to Brady. With her still gasping for air, he fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium," the complaint says.
"Smith described it as 'a good clean finishing shot,'" according to the complaint.
None of that even remotely matters with castle doctrine laws. None of the laws in the states that have SYG or castle laws mention what angle you are allowed to shoot your guy to kill an intruder in your house and what angles or distance you are not allowed. Not all states have laws that require reporting the shooting at all. Nor do all states have laws that state you can't move the bodies in your own home.
Again, if he had said not a word, he'd be a completely free man most likely. But the fact is, he did say something and what he said incriminated himself in a crime. For that, I'm thankful this nut did that.
In general terms when shooting someone a reasonable person would consider a threat, bringing up how people are trained to use firearms, is a valid point.
....unfortunately Mr. Smith's actions went far beyond the pale according to his own statements.
Most peoples' objections are to what he did after the initial shots on the victims. Then the fact that he didn't bother to call the police until after he had a good nights sleep.
Like someone else said, I wouldn't lose sleep over what the guy in the story did, but It definitely wasn't... errr... smart either But neither is keeping them alive to go through a possibly losing everything from a lawsuit afterwards, so - meh.
I disagree with you there reasons where I could see someone killing another person as being justified. For example that case in Texas in which a man beat a child molester to death.
This case not so much.
You see - but that is your morals speaking right now. That case is no difference, what you dictate as justifiable is simply your morals talking just as much as mine.
This whole concept that everyone has a right to life is god damn laughable. You forfeited your right to life when you attempted to steal and possibly murder another man.
You see - but that is your morals speaking right now. That case is no difference, what you dictate as justifiable is simply your morals talking just as much as mine..
Going from this:
To this:
Methinks you don't really know anything about gun laws--just another pretentious internet tough guy.
What does 1 post have to do with the other? Morals doesn't equate to laws
Yeah, I'm still waiting for examples of the Castle Doctrine in practise where it is acceptable to execute your incapacitated victims.
Might as well post a wikipedia link to the Constitution and just cover your bases. Fucking idiot...
IMO, when the fight or flight response is activated - how can you be held responsible for what you do if you're not the one who chose to be in that situation? these guys broke into the guys house. whether he fights or not isn't really something he thinks about - it's instinct at that point. if he (for example - while freaked out of his mind by them) hits one in the head, then repeatedly (in the heat of the moment) keeps doing it while the guy is on the floor - not his fault and shouldn't be charged with anything.
2 less pieces of shit in the world and the real victim (homeowner) is now going through hell even after their death.
Please show where I ever stated such when I posted the castle doctrine or stated that I support the execution of incapacitated criminals.
Go look in the mirror and you will see the idiot in this thread.
Like I said, you have attention span of a 2 year old. I originally ask some bloke to give some examples of why it's better to execute your incapacitated attackers because we don't want to keep them alive to sue us, then you chime in with all your remedial wisdom and post a wiki link to The Castle Doctrine.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34304041&highlight=#post34304041
And you have the logic of a liberal (which is none) - You two cuties should date :biggrin:
Trying to make a connection between morals and law, you silly silly little boy
What are you rambling about now. How am I trying to make a connection between moral and laws exactly? Explain.
if you're legally allowed to "shoot to kill", but you miss... it's still legal to fire again. How does that apply to this I wonder?
Does the law spell out the illegality of "finishing off" a home invader?
I mean... if you're legally allowed to "shoot to kill", but you miss... it's still legal to fire again. How does that apply to this I wonder?
but he already hit them...
Hit, but not a killing blow.
Are home owners only allowed one shot?
Hit, but not a killing blow.
Are home owners only allowed one shot?
If you can't control your hormones in high stress situation, you probably shouldn't own guns for self defense in the first place. Your argument can be used to defend essentially any criminal situation; clearly a fallacy.