Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ashotep

Drunk teen killed

400 posts in this topic

Besides that you had people trespassing on your property then getting snake bit or breaking a leg and they wanted to sue you for that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line: You break into my house, you get shot. The end.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the home owner was 100% in the right. If someone were to come through my window at night or front door in the day time, doesn't matter when, I'm defending my kids and wife how ever I need to. I grew up around guns and they are 100% safe if you know how to handle them. People who believe that guns should be banned can go ahead and tell me again how nobody can get their hands on drugs since they are illegal as well. Banning guns would take them away from law abiding citizens to protect themselves and families from the not so law abiding citizens who will get them by other means.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gangs will always have them. Most criminals don't get them by legal means anyway.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the state of Missouri they have passed a law that if you get hurt while trespassing tough luck. You were breaking the law so you can't sue. This law passed a few years ago and stood up in court already.

This is how it should be in every state, it's common sense. Home invaders/criminals should not be able to sue their victims as happens now and then. That's just stupid.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This individual wasn't properly trained how to handle a gun and how to handle a situation like this. As for me, I would pull out the gun and pull it on the intruder. The gun alone would make them stop, then I would asses the situation to see if they got a gun or are they harmless individuals. If the intruder tries to reach for something, I would stop them and have an family member or friend retrieve it from them.

Edited by Uncle Sam
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This individual wasn't properly trained how to handle a gun and how to handle a situation like this. As for me, I would pull out the gun and pull it on the intruder. The gun alone would make them stop, then I would asses the situation to see if they got a gun or are they harmless individuals. If the intruder tries to reach for something, I would stop them and have an family member or friend retrieve it from them.

The gun didn't make him stop, even after the homeowner warned him and fired a warning shot.

You haven't read all of the articles have you?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are psychotic and aren't going to stop just because you point a gun at them. If you aren't prepared to pull the trigger they might take it away from you and kill you with your own gun.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't read all of the articles have you?

That seems to be common practice latley.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all who still want to try and judge the man http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/22/homeowner-fired-warning-before-fatally-shooting-teen-intruder-sheriff-says/?intcmp=trending

Looks like he knew how to aim the weapon, little do people know (probably from watching too many movies) being shot in the shoulder can be fatal, as evidenced in this instance. There is no 'safe' place to shoot someone, and to be honest, he let the kid get a lot further than he should have.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kid was drunk, I doubt he knew what was going on. The fact that the houses may have been built the same, does not mean the furniture is the same, the kid did not notice any of this...because he was drunk.

Can`t see how the owner did not notice that the kid was drunk....maybe one little shove would have stopped him, after all the owner was standing on the top of the stairs.

But who really knows what really took place there, apart from the sober person?

Edited by freetoroam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kid was drunk, I doubt he knew what was going on. The fact that the houses may have been built the same, does not mean the furniture is the same, the kid did not notice any of this...because he was drunk.

Can`t see how the owner did not notice that the kid was drunk....maybe one little shove would have stopped him, after all the owner was standing on the top of the stairs.

But who really knows what really took place there, apart from the sober person?

I'm sure he did know he was drunk by that point.. In my opinion, that makes a person that much more unpredictable and potentially more dangerous. I'm sure that particular opinion is also common among law enforcement.

Besides, with all the complaining about "He didn't need to shoot to kill him", the guy put a round in his shoulder, not center mass. Unfortunately for the adolescent, he didn't survive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a warning shot doesn't stop them, then a bullet injury will. A well place injury in the leg will drop them to the ground. There is numerous ways to disabling someone without killing with a gun. Yes they will probably have a bullet wound and injury afterwards, but I won't have to kill someone. Pain is a good motivator in stopping someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shot to the leg can easily kill, too.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all who still want to try and judge the man http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=trending

Looks like he knew how to aim the weapon, little do people know (probably from watching too many movies) being shot in the shoulder can be fatal, as evidenced in this instance. There is no 'safe' place to shoot someone, and to be honest, he let the kid get a lot further than he should have.

Gee what do ya know a shot to the shoulder.....I know most of you anti gun people probably do not know this but that usually is not a kill shot!Guess the whole he shot to try and kill him he could have shot him in the leg or elsewhere just to maim him theory just got thrown out the damn window!Now i see the argument switches to he could have gave him a little shove :o ...Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shot to the leg can easily kill, too.

But it isn't a instant kill. I could have cops and ambulance there in 20 minutes. Anything is an kill shot if you let the individual bleed out.

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a warning shot doesn't stop them, then a bullet injury will. A well place injury in the leg will drop them to the ground. There is numerous ways to disabling someone without killing with a gun. Yes they will probably have a bullet wound and injury afterwards, but I won't have to kill someone. Pain is a good motivator in stopping someone.

You are aware that you can die by being shot in the leg, correct? Not sure where this notion came from (probably too many movies, again), but a firearm is not a non lethal weapon. If you want to stop someone without using lethal force, you have a variety of options (tasers, pepper spray, high frequency directional soundwaves, extremely bright lights). Using a firearm has one design, and that is to put a bullet at a high velocity into something. Every round that hits a body is potentially fatal. There is no 'safe' bullet wound.

In my opinion, and it's an opinion shared by many, is that propogating this myth about shooting someone in the leg or arm is outright dangerous. It causes people to be trigger happy (because they think the person won't die), and it causes the one who is shot to be able to retaliate with their own firearm.

Everyone who has ever taken training in using firearms knows a couple things. 1) Never point your weapon at anything you don't intend to kill 2) If you have to fire your weapon at a human being, you aim for center mass.

There are only a few groups who are taught to shoot elsewhere, the most common being sharpshooters. In that case, they're trained to shoot the inside of one of the eye sockets, it causes an instant kill with a low probability of an involuntary reflex.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femoral_artery

This is in your leg, and it only takes a few minutes to bleed out. In all the movie watching, this is about the one thing they do get right. Black Hawk Down and The Fan both have deaths in them because the femoral artery was severed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it isn't a instant kill. I could have cops and ambulance there in 20 minutes. Anything is an kill shot if you let the individual bleed out.

You're aware that the shoulder shot wasn't an instant kill? The kid unforunately probably had this severed with the shot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilic_vein

Again, there is no safe gunshot wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sighs.* Whatever you say Green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Sighs.* Whatever you say Green.

Ok, here's a challenge. Find me one shred of evidence that there exists a 'safe' spot to shoot someone. To make it easier on you, just find me some trainer or training material that validates your claims of a 'safe' spot to shoot someone. I've been searching for something to help out your position, but can't find anything other than adolescents on message boards saying 'shoot them in the leg'. Well, I've already pointed out how dangerous it is to be shot in the leg. Another assumed one is the shoulder and arm, which we found out in this instance was fatal.

Seriously, stop watching action movies and look at real life information. Actually, take a look at the others posts about 'shooting in the leg' and observe your company. You won't find one person, who is trained to use firearms, support your claim.

It's not 'whatever I say', it's reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/best-place-to-get-shot.htm

Looks like I and Ed Sizemore agree. The only people I'm finding in agreement on the position of a 'safe' spot is a handful of anonymous internet people, who majority also have said they don't shoot guns, nor do they think Americans should be able to buy guns. Everybody else; CCW holders, trainers, law enforcement, and military all agree that if you pull your gun to shoot someone, you aim for center mass.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://science.howst...to-get-shot.htm

Looks like I and Ed Sizemore agree. The only people I'm finding in agreement on the position of a 'safe' spot is a handful of anonymous internet people, who majority also have said they don't shoot guns, nor do they think Americans should be able to buy guns. Everybody else; CCW holders, trainers, law enforcement, and military all agree that if you pull your gun to shoot someone, you aim for center mass.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night im damn sure not going to try and give them a case of stigmata :lol::gun:

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is don't break into someones house and you won't get shot.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are aware that you can die by being shot in the leg, correct? Not sure where this notion came from (probably too many movies, again), but a firearm is not a non lethal weapon. If you want to stop someone without using lethal force, you have a variety of options (tasers, pepper spray, high frequency directional soundwaves, extremely bright lights). Using a firearm has one design, and that is to put a bullet at a high velocity into something. Every round that hits a body is potentially fatal. There is no 'safe' bullet wound.

In my opinion, and it's an opinion shared by many, is that propogating this myth about shooting someone in the leg or arm is outright dangerous. It causes people to be trigger happy (because they think the person won't die), and it causes the one who is shot to be able to retaliate with their own firearm.

Everyone who has ever taken training in using firearms knows a couple things. 1) Never point your weapon at anything you don't intend to kill 2) If you have to fire your weapon at a human being, you aim for center mass.

There are only a few groups who are taught to shoot elsewhere, the most common being sharpshooters. In that case, they're trained to shoot the inside of one of the eye sockets, it causes an instant kill with a low probability of an involuntary reflex.

Some people have watched to many Westerns, and Bruce Willis movies, throw in the lethal weapons....

When you are protecting you and your families lives, you are not aiming, you are trying to hit and stop the danger.

Myself, I would do like trinity below...... :blush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpFWSD9JZ7M

I agree 100%

Edited by Sakari
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.