Three teenage burglars shot dead in Oklahoma. An AR-15 was used

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,630
12,762
146
I am aware that pacifism is nice idea that gets you killed

I'm not so sure that you do. In this thread you've been quite adamant several times that this was the wrong decision, almost to the point of blaming the victim of the robbery. Three people invaded his home, and he had an immediate threat to his life (they were armed). Shoot to kill is the appropriate response in this scenario, until the threat was eliminated. There's nothing else to debate here.

For the record, *logically* he didn't need to kill the runner, but in the heat of the moment I can understand if he took that final shot. Adrenaline does that.
 
Reactions: Ns1

NetWareHead

THAT guy
Aug 10, 2002
5,854
154
106

Still means nothing. And it does not answer my question at all. The cops only found out this group "was after stuff" after the fact when they interviewed the getaway driver. The homeowner could not have possibly known the intentions of these people breaking into his house. For all he knew they were there to kill him. A lethal force response was wholly appropriate. And what is your issue with him not being afraid?

As I said I don't have anything against home defense (castle doctrine law) or guns per se, there are heavily armed dangerous robbers and rapists out there which for sure kill you first or steal everything if you don't act quickly, but I don't understand when cowards are praised for being cowards, shooting someone armed with knuckle, or knife, or being unarmed at all is fucking cowardly thing to do. Whether it is in your house or in porn shop, whether it's legal or not. It's cowardice at its best. The guy is coward.
Although the girl is bitch too, she drove away when last guy was running out, she left him there, also cowardly thing to do.

You are entitled to your own opinion, as crazy as I may think it is. I dont know where you get this notion from that this was supposed to be a fair fight and sanctioned by any rules. IMO I think the criminals were the cowards using strength in numbers, broke into a house where most normal people don't expect to have to defend themselves, brought weapons and had setup a getaway driver outside, all to hopefully overwhelm one guy. And you want to argue fairness and pass judgement on who is a coward?? Please kindly fuck off.

The homeowner is a hero for these reasons:

1. He met them at their own game and brought an unexpected weapon to the fight (that he wasnt prepared for) that trumped both their strength in numbers AND their own weapons.

2. Despite the surprise element the criminals enjoyed, they were unable to get an advantage on the homeowner.

3. I have more respect for vermin than I do for these criminals breaking an entering into a mans house.

4. I can respect a skilled gun owner, judging by the results, who knew what he was doing. The right guy survived and we got rid of 3 criminals (permanently) and landed one more in jail.

5. I can respect the upholding of our rights of self-defense, castle doctrine and using deadly force in applicable situations. The fact the homeowner is not being charged with a crime is righteous.
 
Reactions: Ns1

NetWareHead

THAT guy
Aug 10, 2002
5,854
154
106
Now to your question:
I would order them to leave, if not complying, few warning shots would be shot near them. By that time they would be very unlikely still there or trying to subdue me, but if yes they would be shot to places which would not kill them but would render them incapable of harming me. In any case I would definitely not shoot on sight unless the guy would also have a gun and would start aiming at me.

Shoot to wound?
I can see the court case with the surviving criminal(s) already going after you for healthcare, pain and suffering and inflicted emotional duress. Good job you just created a dependent on you for as you as he lives. What if the criminal doesnt admit to being there for unlawful reasons? Now you have to prove why you shot him and a court will decide your fate on a attempted murder charge.

Shoot to kill?
Testis unus, testis nullus.
 

DrunkenSano

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2008
3,892
490
126
When the wolf comes into your house, you best defend yourself or be eaten like sheep. You can call the cops all you want but physical threat to you is seconds away while the police are minutes away, that doesn't help you.

Also, why do some people insist on calling criminals 'teens' when they are home invading criminals that could have done a lot of potential harm to the homeowner. It doesn't matter if they are teens, 20's, 30's, 40's, etc., they are criminals when they break into someone's home, the age doesn't limit the harm they can do to someone. Until they develop an accurate, magical 8-ball or some sort of mind reading device, it's always safest to defend yourself from threats.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
Self defense is self defense. These were teenagers ffs, two was 16 or younger. Do you remember your own stupidity as a teenager? Shot dead at 16 and some of you are "glad" this person is dead. Dam son, thats cold.

Breaking into house with weapons is not "stupid teenager shit".
Its more along the lines of "threatening a family and risking your life" stuff.
 
Reactions: Ns1

NetWareHead

THAT guy
Aug 10, 2002
5,854
154
106
Breaking into house with weapons is not "stupid teenager shit".
Its more along the lines of "threatening a family and risking your life" stuff.

This. I surely did some bone headed stuff when I was a teenager but I still had good enough sense to avoid activity like this. Plus I like to give my parents/family just a little bit of credit and thank them for instilling into me a better sense of morals and sense than these three criminals.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
While what you say regarding weight, and penetration is true, the first part is also true, as we were taught that in the military. Primarily whenever the question came up as to why we didn't use larger caliber ammunition.

I was in the military too, and there are more than a few wives tales spread through the ranks by people that couldn't find their own a-holes with a map and both hands. Many in the military, especially combat jobs or the navy, have a crap ton of superstitions. It may have been a happy serendipitous side effect, that was the reason for originally switching to the M16/AR15 platform from a design perspective. Nor the reason why most of the military has switched over to the M4 now.
 

Sheep221

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2012
1,843
27
81
Shoot to wound?
I can see the court case with the surviving criminal(s) already going after you for healthcare, pain and suffering and inflicted emotional duress. Good job you just created a dependent on you for as you as he lives. What if the criminal doesnt admit to being there for unlawful reasons? Now you have to prove why you shot him and a court will decide your fate on a attempted murder charge.

Shoot to kill?
Testis unus, testis nullus.
This is a good point, lol.
Well if you do kill a guy ok, he's dead no charges, but if you wound the guy or give warning shots, there would be charges all of a sudden? I mean this is kind of twisted right? If that is true than I'm not wondering why they were instantly killed regardless of actual threat or fear in victim.
Anyhow you think of it, being wounded is better than being killed, or not?
I was thinking yesterday when writing the previous post exactly about this, if wounded guys would be able to claim for damages, guess you answered that beforehand.
 

NetWareHead

THAT guy
Aug 10, 2002
5,854
154
106
This is a good point, lol.
Well if you do kill a guy ok, he's dead no charges, but if you wound the guy or give warning shots, there would be charges all of a sudden? I mean this is kind of twisted right? If that is true than I'm not wondering why they were instantly killed regardless of actual threat or fear in victim.
Anyhow you think of it, being wounded is better than being killed, or not?
I was thinking yesterday when writing the previous post exactly about this, if wounded guys would be able to claim for damages, guess you answered that beforehand.

The thing is that in a situation like we have here, I am only caring for my own safety (and loved ones) and dont give 2 shits what happens to the criminals. I've already made peace with the fact I am committed to using guns to preserve our lives and will unload as many mags as I have to to ensure that. Its not twisted at all IMO. Its my right to survival.

Plus if you shoot to wound, you may have given up your only legally sanctioned opportunity to kill the guy. Once wounded you cant legally shoot him again unless he still poses a threat. So make the first shot count and do not fire warning or wounding shots.

What do you think will happen if you wound a guy in your home? The cops are surely going to come. An investigation will follow. You will be questioned. You'll need an attorney. You will be before a grand jury and possibly a courtoom. Why? Just to preserve the life of some vermin that was there to harm you in the first place? Your name will be dragged through the mud in the papers. I dont even want to begin to calculate the time and money you will need to expend on your own legal defense. I cant see putting myself through any of this for the deliberate preservation of this criminal's life.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,630
12,762
146
I was in the military too, and there are more than a few wives tales spread through the ranks by people that couldn't find their own a-holes with a map and both hands. Many in the military, especially combat jobs or the navy, have a crap ton of superstitions. It may have been a happy serendipitous side effect, that was the reason for originally switching to the M16/AR15 platform from a design perspective. Nor the reason why most of the military has switched over to the M4 now.

True enough, wounding the opponent wasn't the 'reason' to switch to the weapon. The reason why it's still in use however, may be contributed to by it's wound-rather-than-kill effect, in addition to the costs associated. There are plenty of old-wives-tales in the military, but they aren't generally taught to you by firing instructors in basic training. They tend to stick to the facts.
 

Sheep221

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2012
1,843
27
81
The thing is that in a situation like we have here, I am only caring for my own safety (and loved ones) and dont give 2 shits what happens to the criminals. I've already made peace with the fact I am committed to using guns to preserve our lives and will unload as many mags as I have to to ensure that. Its not twisted at all IMO. Its my right to survival.

Plus if you shoot to wound, you may have given up your only legally sanctioned opportunity to kill the guy. Once wounded you cant legally shoot him again unless he still poses a threat. So make the first shot count and do not fire warning or wounding shots.

What do you think will happen if you wound a guy in your home? The cops are surely going to come. An investigation will follow. You will be questioned. You'll need an attorney. You will be before a grand jury and possibly a courtoom. Why? Just to preserve the life of some vermin that was there to harm you in the first place? Your name will be dragged through the mud in the papers. I dont even want to begin to calculate the time and money you will need to expend on your own legal defense. I cant see putting myself through any of this for the deliberate preservation of this criminal's life.
Well, that I didn't know. I didn't think killing is basically preferred by law. I thought you can show some mercy if you want. In this sense I was wrong ofc.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
They were after stuff
And the shooter seemed to not be afraid
As I said I don't have anything against home defense (castle doctrine law) or guns per se, there are heavily armed dangerous robbers and rapists out there which for sure kill you first or steal everything if you don't act quickly, but I don't understand when cowards are praised for being cowards, shooting someone armed with knuckle, or knife, or being unarmed at all is fucking cowardly thing to do. Whether it is in your house or in porn shop, whether it's legal or not. It's cowardice at its best. The guy is coward.
Although the girl is bitch too, she drove away when last guy was running out, she left him there, also cowardly thing to do.


I don't see it as cowardly. I am not quizzing someone that breaks into my house dressed in all black with a knife. I'm defending myself if I can. This person has already shown a disregard for my home and the law by breaking in. Once I determine I want to defend myself, I am not looking for a fair fight. If I have a gun, and the person that broke in has a knife, I don't see it as cowardice for using the gun. This isn't a boxing match, this is a potential life or death situation with an aggressor that has shown he does not care about my rights. Using a gun here is smart, not cowardly.
 
Reactions: Ns1

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
You raise valid points and add a reminder of the criminals' humanity that we seem to forget about when many in this thread are obsession about retribution. Unfortunately all of your solutions are not applicable when these people are seconds away from causing grievous bodily harm and are in the middle of invading your home. The fight and will to survive is paramount.

That being said, the solution to deal with these people during a crime in progress while they are in your home is with a gun and willingness to defend one's self. There is no time to think about helping these misguided folks back to morality and rehabilitating them. While both of our lives might be precious as you point out, in this situation it comes down to me vs them. This sort of dehumanization is essential for the good guys to survive and respond with deadly force rather than an olive branch.

As I stated before, based on my knowledge of this situation, I believe the homeowner took a legal and appropriate action. I cannot say whether it was the best action, but no one facing reasonable imminent threat should be restricted in taking action to defend themselves.

But I do not see this as an incompatibility with my other statements.

Sometimes it is right as a doctor to withdrawal treatments which are not prolonging meaningful life. Sometimes it is right to respect someone's choice to refuse an intervention that you think is actually in their interest. Sometimes it's important to restrict someone from a treatment that they want but whose risks endanger them unnecessarily beyond the benefit (if any). These are not things that are easy to do, and you can in fact do them more easily if you lie to yourself and say that their life is no longer important, that they are an idiot and deserve the suffering they choose, that they are a drug-seeking asshole and don't respect you, etc. While those are preferable to refusing to let go, forcing treatment on someone who has capacity to refuse, and granting an addict their fix, none of these solutions are humane.

If we wish to progress as a society, we can do so by making the right choice and accepting that the right choice comes with suffering -- if we share it when we have the power to do so, perhaps another will share your suffering in kind when they have the power to do so.

But maybe you haven't had the experience of being truly with someone and their family in the final moments of their life, of seeing someone who was making serial bad decisions come back to you in the future and say they've turned their life around because you were the first person to ever respect their authority to make their own choices without avoiding the feeling they were going to go badly, or to have someone break down and share with you how hard it is to face the realization that they can't live without feeling tethered to a substance.

Those experiences don't always go so well. Sometimes you get torn a new asshole. But if someone is so terrified to face reality that they are willing to rip you to shreds to avoid it, does it not validate their suffering and your compassion even more?

This is the stuff of life. I hate that our society has come to a point where we can avoid so much unpleasantness that we can carry out biological function without the very experiences that make us human. Pardon me for fighting for the thing that we are so frequently lacking.

Haven't you wondered why disability is exploding, opioid epidemic, chronic pain, chronic fatigue, suicide, etc.? Perhaps something repressed is making itself known.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
This is the stuff of life. I hate that our society has come to a point where we can avoid so much unpleasantness that we can carry out biological function without the very experiences that make us human. Pardon me for fighting for the thing that we are so frequently lacking.

Haven't you wondered why disability is exploding, opioid epidemic, chronic pain, chronic fatigue, suicide, etc.? Perhaps something repressed is making itself known.

Don't worry, we are one virus that kills humans or destroys his food crops away from reverting back to simpler times.....

The problem in the end is that we have to much leisure time to think. Who knew that being well fed, clothed, etc.... would not translate to happiness? Since the only meaningful objective in human existence is happiness (reducing human suffering), it appears we are failing miserably as a species.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,549
13,115
136
Breaking into house with weapons is not "stupid teenager shit".
Its more along the lines of "threatening a family and risking your life" stuff.
I agree. Self defense. Stupid kids.
What I am putting into contrast is "im glad they are dead" with "tragic" or "misguided" or "fatal mistake by teen brain".
I would do the same thing. Wouldnt be glad about it afterwards.. these teens still had a chance to turn it around, not like your otherwise average hardened career criminal.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,630
12,762
146
stop watching movies, real life is much different.

to the DA, warning shots show you were not in fear of your life.
Not to mention, a warning shot toward a doorway will very likely end up in the house across the street. At least if it goes through a body it's likely to hit the ground a few feet past, assuming it doesn't hit bone or otherwise get halted on the way through.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
stop watching movies, real life is much different.

to the DA, warning shots show you were not in fear of your life.

Shots fired at someone you are not "in fear of your life from" are basically illegal all over the place. Never shoot unless you intend to kill. About the only thing that I would consider for giving out a warning is racking the pump on a shotgun. I can see a tiny bit of argument for that, but I personally wouldn't do that. Why? If the intruders have guns and are there to kill you regardless, you just allowed them to hear your position and that they have to fire first now before you do.
 

Sheep221

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2012
1,843
27
81
I dub thee "forum idiot"
Since I don't like to watch violent content, 99% of TV programming is not suitable for me, I don't watch TV or movies at all.

Thanks for explaining the warning shots, that's what I thought at first.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,630
12,762
146
Since I don't like to watch violent content, 99% of TV programming is not suitable for me, I don't watch TV or movies at all.

Thanks for explaining the warning shots, that's what I thought at first.

You don't have to 'watch violent content' to be aware that defending yourself against someone using violence will probably require a greater amount of violence, at least if you want to come out of it in one piece. You NEVER bring a knife to a knife fight.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Don't worry, we are one virus that kills humans or destroys his food crops away from reverting back to simpler times.....

The problem in the end is that we have to much leisure time to think. Who knew that being well fed, clothed, etc.... would not translate to happiness? Since the only meaningful objective in human existence is happiness (reducing human suffering), it appears we are failing miserably as a species.

Freud's theory was that we are born into the world governed by the pleasure principle, simply compulsively doing what is pleasurable and avoiding (and eventually repressing) what is unpleasurable.

I think it's a good theory, but clearly he recognized humans moving beyond that, learning to delay gratification in order to find greater pleasure (or at least discharge), and that such was necessary for survival. He had some notion that we have more complex instinctual or evolutionary aims that required such a thing. He stated we learned to do so for realizing over time that our childhood dreams, fantasies, and hallucinations did not bring us what we want, and called the new system the reality principle.

His idea is the symptoms were compromises between these principles that weren't effective at achieving our aim of pleasure or discharge.

At least, that's what he wrote in I think 1911.

Anyway, he didn't get it completely right, but this part is gold.

We are trying desperately as a people to avoid certain unpleasures, but our compromises aren't fully adaptive so they are creating symptoms.

I think society has a role in allowing for, teaching, and reinforcing better ways.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,478
524
126
Sheep221 has to be one of the most clueless people I have seen post on this topic. I am sad to see there are people who actually think like that. Living up to the name, sheep. I hope he educates himself on the topic more.
 

YBS1

Golden Member
May 14, 2000
1,945
129
106
Sheep221 has to be one of the most clueless people I have seen post on this topic. I am sad to see there are people who actually think like that. Living up to the name, sheep. I hope he educates himself on the topic more.

I disagree....Yesterday I was just about to rip into him over some of his posts, particularly the "warning shots / wound them" one, I had already typed up most of the reply and said to myself "Screw it, why bother?". Now I'm glad I did, very few people will admit to being wrong on the internet without being blasted with 100% incontrovertible facts to the contrary, or even allowing others to change their opinion. Now I can't say he necessarily agrees with us full stop at this juncture, but it's obvious his opinion has shifted.
 
Reactions: SOFTengCOMPelec

Sheep221

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2012
1,843
27
81
Sheep221 has to be one of the most clueless people I have seen post on this topic. I am sad to see there are people who actually think like that. Living up to the name, sheep. I hope he educates himself on the topic more.
If I am wrong, do say it if you think so, if I am clueless so be it, I'm ok with that, maybe I am relying on facts others would not, should I educate myself more on the subject? I guess yes, is showing some mercy wrong or good? It's not definitive yes and no answer.
But picking on a user name? Please spare me, how are others' nicks descriptive of their fellow users? Should I rename my user name to gunnut666 or stealth007 to become badass?
I guess many disagreed with my attitude about things but I did stress that some facts are important to evaluate, mention, concepts of home security, precautions and habits of livng, proportionality of force or what(if anything) can be done not to kill instead are things I don't feel wrong about mentioning nor ashamed of mentioning. As much as those who did disagree with me, half others did agree that killing them was brutal act. I still don't like the fact that teens were killed but based on later discussions on how this law works, killing them might not be the best thing to do but right thing to do for the homeowner because if they would end up wounded they actually might lie, ask for damages, making homeowner liable for what could be endless legal hassle, which would be way beyond anyone would be willing/capable to endure just to spare lives of intruders in his house, in this sense I was not aware of how this law operates and was maybe overly harsh on homeowner's actions, I admit that. I also don't think any less of myself just because I mentioned possibility of warning shots or wounding, if you can own a gun and kill intruder, wounding or warning is logically better, not legally, I didn't know that, so what?
I disagree....Yesterday I was just about to rip into him over some of his posts, particularly the "warning shots / wound them" one, I had already typed up most of the reply and said to myself "Screw it, why bother?". Now I'm glad I did, very few people will admit to being wrong on the internet without being blasted with 100% incontrovertible facts to the contrary, or even allowing others to change their opinion. Now I can't say he necessarily agrees with us full stop at this juncture, but it's obvious his opinion has shifted.
I guess you wanted to mention something similar like NetWareHead did? I mean the warning shots, wound shots being illegal/unsafe to do.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |