Old Man Kills Intruder

[Scomagia]

Surely every man has the right to defend his own property? Had he not have shot them, they would have most likely went to somebody else's house a few nights later and stole even more things.

You don't get to kill people for things they might do in the non-immediate future.

[The Lone Alliance]

Also.

You can't kill someone who's running the fuck away and claim self defense. It doesn't work that way.

Of course you can, just pull the trigger and claim that they were walking backwards while bragging on how they can't be shot in the back.

Really under your ideas all a criminal would have to do is moonwalk everywhere, no one will be able to stop them because if they did they'd go to jail for shooting them in the back.

[Rephesus]

Okay, so I attack you, you pull out a gun and don't shoot me, I walk away. I come back several minutes later and this time I grab your gun before you can get off the ground and call the police. Bang.

They ran, yes he should've held them at gunpoint instead of actually shooting, but the fact is they broke into his house and assaulted him.

Unreasonable scenario. Why do I remain in the area? Why didn't I call the police during those intervening minutes? How, exactly, did you come back and take me by surprise? Why did you come back at all? What, if anything, did you have to gain?

Simple really. I crippled you badly and you were left there on the floor, you didn't have a Phone I'm hands reach (Maybe you were in your garage?) I snuck up on you or just rushed back in, not hard when the target is an old crippled man, and the reason I came back was because you could easily identify me to the police and end my life of crime. Plus i would be pissed.

[Infected Mushroom]

Surely every man has the right to defend his own property? Had he not have shot them, they would have most likely went to somebody else's house a few nights later and stole even more things.

this is a very very good point.

[Scomagia]

Also.

You can't kill someone who's running the fuck away and claim self defense. It doesn't work that way.

Of course you can, just pull the trigger and claim that they were walking backwards while bragging on how they can't be shot in the back.

Really under your ideas all a criminal would have to do is moonwalk everywhere, no one will be able to stop them because if they did they'd go to jail for shooting them in the back.

Did you have help building that strawman or did you do it all by yourself?

[Infected Mushroom]

If you aren't attacking me anymore I don't get to shoot you. It's not rocket science.

It very clearly wasn't justified.

Okay, so I attack you, you pull out a gun and don't shoot me, I walk away. I come back several minutes later and this time I grab your gun before you can get off the ground and call the police. Bang.

They ran, yes he should've held them at gunpoint instead of actually shooting, but the fact is they broke into his house and assaulted him.

which makes him the more sympathetic party.

I think the law shouldn't go after him for a technicality. Its not a law school textbook example of self-defense, but the action is completely understandable.

They just broke into his home and from his point of view, nearly killed him (he's a fragile old man who's just been beaten). If he had a gun, he was going to use it.

[Rephesus]

They were trespassing in his home, breaking and entering, stealing, vandalizing, assaulting the owner with full knowledge of the inequality in power, lying about their medical state, fleeing the scene of a crime, and again, they assaulted a man in his home. Shooting them was justified.

Killing? Maybe not. Shooting them? Yes, definitely.

[Scomagia]

Unreasonable scenario. Why do I remain in the area? Why didn't I call the police during those intervening minutes? How, exactly, did you come back and take me by surprise? Why did you come back at all? What, if anything, did you have to gain?

Simple really. I crippled you badly and you were left there on the floor, you didn't have a Phone I'm hands reach (Maybe you were in your garage?) I snuck up on you or just rushed back in, not hard when the target is an old crippled man, and the reason I came back was because you could easily identify me to the police and end my life of crime. Plus i would be pissed.

So you come back to kill me, thereby risking a much greater sentence and a higher likelihood of being caught, so as to prevent yourself from the relatively small possibility of going to prison for a few years? Sounds like bullshit to me.

[Infected Mushroom]

They were trespassing in his home, breaking and entering, stealing, vandalizing, assaulting the owner with full knowledge of the inequality in power, lying about their medical state, fleeing the scene of a crime, and again, they assaulted a man in his home. Shooting them was justified.

Killing? Maybe not. Shooting them? Yes, definitely.

i agree.

and look at how unfairly biased the OP title is. ''In cold blood''? Seriously...

it's not ''in cold blood'' if its seconds after you've been robbed and beaten.

[Rephesus]

Simple really. I crippled you badly and you were left there on the floor, you didn't have a Phone I'm hands reach (Maybe you were in your garage?) I snuck up on you or just rushed back in, not hard when the target is an old crippled man, and the reason I came back was because you could easily identify me to the police and end my life of crime. Plus i would be pissed.

So you come back to kill me, thereby risking a much greater sentence and a higher likelihood of being caught, so as to prevent yourself from the relatively small possibility of going to prison for a few years? Sounds like bullshit to me.

Spur of the moment. And if successful the likelihood of getting caught diminishes rapidly. Assuming there were no other witnesses or camera footage, then it's very difficult to ID the intruder.

[Scomagia]

Okay, so I attack you, you pull out a gun and don't shoot me, I walk away. I come back several minutes later and this time I grab your gun before you can get off the ground and call the police. Bang.

They ran, yes he should've held them at gunpoint instead of actually shooting, but the fact is they broke into his house and assaulted him.

which makes him the more sympathetic party.

I think the law shouldn't go after him for a technicality. Its not a law school textbook example of self-defense, but the action is completely understandable.

They just broke into his home and from his point of view, nearly killed him (he's a fragile old man who's just been beaten). If he had a gun, he was going to use it.

Once again, you support draconian punishments for criminals.......until the criminal is someone you agree with.

[Risottia]

Surely every man has the right to defend his own property?

There is no such absolute right.

[Montenalba]

Surely every man has the right to defend his own property? Had he not have shot them, they would have most likely went to somebody else's house a few nights later and stole even more things.

You don't get to kill people for things they might do in the non-immediate future.

Perhaps he was simply doing the world a favour by getting rid of more criminal scum? Not only did they steal but the girl lied about being pregnant to save her own bacon!

[Fireye]

Biased topic title is biased.

[Infected Mushroom]

Simple really. I crippled you badly and you were left there on the floor, you didn't have a Phone I'm hands reach (Maybe you were in your garage?) I snuck up on you or just rushed back in, not hard when the target is an old crippled man, and the reason I came back was because you could easily identify me to the police and end my life of crime. Plus i would be pissed.

So you come back to kill me, thereby risking a much greater sentence and a higher likelihood of being caught, so as to prevent yourself from the relatively small possibility of going to prison for a few years? Sounds like bullshit to me.

if someone can identify your face, your chances of getting sentenced at all is much higher.

Also, you're assuming these criminals are rational. They've already displayed psychopathic behavior when they chose to victimize an old man, break into his house to steal things from them, and beat the hell out of him. Rationality is the last thing we can assume of these types of dangerous criminals... their aggressiveness and propensity for violence on the other hand, can be assumed. They were dangerous, running or not.

[Risottia]

You don't get to kill people for things they might do in the non-immediate future.

Perhaps he was simply doing the world a favour by getting rid of more criminal scum? Not only did they steal but the girl lied about being pregnant to save her own bacon!

So fuck yeah vigilantism! Kill the liars! Kill them for lying while attempting to save their worthless life!

By the way: second-degree murder is crime. Hence the shooter is a criminal. Hence you support killing him. If you don't, you're a liar and support yourself being killed for lying.

Yeah, it's a slippery slope.

[Montenalba]

Surely every man has the right to defend his own property?

There is no such absolute right.

Castle Doctrine.

[The Grim Reaper]

There is no such absolute right.

Castle Doctrine.

Law =/= a moral right.

Laws are mutable.

[Infected Mushroom]

which makes him the more sympathetic party.

I think the law shouldn't go after him for a technicality. Its not a law school textbook example of self-defense, but the action is completely understandable.

They just broke into his home and from his point of view, nearly killed him (he's a fragile old man who's just been beaten). If he had a gun, he was going to use it.

Once again, you support draconian punishments for criminals.......until the criminal is someone you agree with.

why's that an issue?

There are instances where the law should be changed in the name of Justice. This is one of them I think.

[Rephesus]

And the argument about 'they will never return' is BS. This Old man's home was burglarized 4 times. 4. All 4 times by different people with no knowledge of the previous events? Highly unlikely. It's pretty obvious what was going on, and he put a stop to it.

[Risottia]

There is no such absolute right.

Castle Doctrine.

Does not constitute an absolute right.
Also, might not apply in California.

[Montenalba]

Castle Doctrine.

Law =/= a moral right.

Laws are mutable.

Can I ask you a question?

Would you allow someone who had just broken into your house and had been stealing from you to get away with no punishment?

[Scomagia]

So you come back to kill me, thereby risking a much greater sentence and a higher likelihood of being caught, so as to prevent yourself from the relatively small possibility of going to prison for a few years? Sounds like bullshit to me.

Spur of the moment. And if successful the likelihood of getting caught diminishes rapidly. Assuming there were no other witnesses or camera footage, then it's very difficult to ID the intruder.

Yeah, the fact that you just shot me with my own gun isn't going to attract the cops and the attention of anyone in the nearby area. That's not mentioning the fact that you're leaving prints on the gun(Unless you waste time wiping it down) and that, in the struggle initially described, I almost certainly inflicted defensive wounds on you, thereby causing you to shed DNA evidence on scene. Oh, and there's the fact that shooting someone at close range is going to cover you in blood. Seriously, the situation you describe is so unlikely as to be irrelevant.

[Infected Mushroom]

And the argument about 'they will never return' is BS. This Old man's home was burglarized 4 times. 4. All 4 times by different people with no knowledge of the previous events? Highly unlikely. It's pretty obvious what was going on, and he put a stop to it.

this is a very good point

I wonder, is it the same people? It could very well be. I think they were picking on the poor old man because they assume he can't defend himself...

[Scomagia]

Once again, you support draconian punishments for criminals.......until the criminal is someone you agree with.

why's that an issue?

There are instances where the law should be changed in the name of Justice. This is one of them I think.

It's an issue because it is blatant, unapologetic hypocrisy.