# Senior Citizen Who Kills 2 Repeat Intruders with Inherited Gun is Jailed. Home Condemned.



## Lara (Jun 12, 2019)

[SUB]2 Repeat intruders were shot and killed by a 62 yr old man in his NY home. The senior citizen was arrested, handcuffed, put in an orange jumpsuit, and hauled into court for using his grandfather's gun he inherited despite using it to protect his home and his life. It hadn't been registered in his own name. The NYPD also condemned his home because he was a hoarder. 

So here's a senior who is now homeless and facing up to 4 years in prison for protecting his home and his life from intruders who had robbed him before. I believe it's even against the Constitution regarding the use of a gun for protection. Plus he looked so scared and confused in the courtroom. He didn't deserve that kind of treatment.

So, folks, if you have a gun you inherited you'd better have it registered in your own name.[/SUB]


----------



## Trade (Jun 12, 2019)

I live in Alabama. 

We don't have no registration. We don't need no registration. I don't have to show you any stinking registration.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 12, 2019)

It’s a crazy world out there for sure. :yes:


----------



## CarolfromTX (Jun 12, 2019)

We have a stand your ground law in Texas. He wouldn't have been arrested here.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 12, 2019)

We have a similar case in my area where a man killed two intruders with an illegal handgun.

He was not arrested or charged in the two killings but he does face charges on illegal possession of a firearm, etc...

IMO that's fair, why have laws on the books if they only apply to some people and not others.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 12, 2019)

> The senior citizen was arrested, handcuffed, put in an orange jumpsuit,



Let's get down to the real outrage here. If the jumpsuit had been some color other than orange, would this have been so terrible?


----------



## 911 (Jun 12, 2019)

Due to the amount of gun violence in New York, their legislature created new laws about 15 years ago regarding the transferring of guns, either through inheritance or private purchase. 

In this person’s case, if his case is found reasonable and no charges are brought and if he has no other legal wrangling in his past, I would expect the judge may go easy, but courts can surprise you. 

Here in Pennsylvania, we are just the opposite, but with the number of hunters and NRA members, it’s not surprising. We have no registration or magazine size. You must have a concealed carry permit, but open carry is permitted. Do I ever see anyone with a handgun strapped to his waist? No.


----------



## 911 (Jun 12, 2019)

I have been dwelling on this case since I first read it. What I am about to post has nothing to do with this person’s case and in no way am I accusing him of what I am writing about. It is just something that came to mind.

I remember reading about a few cases across the U.S. where in one case, a retired gentleman who was tired of being robbed, mostly stealing his weapons, killed two teens and in another case, a family man killed an exchange student, who somehow walked into the wrong garage.

In the first case mentioned, two teenagers had previously robbed this retired man, so he was accused of setting up the scene to invite them in for a third time, but this time, he waited on them with his high-powered rifle. Both kids took the “bait” and entered the home through an unlocked door. The result: Two dead teens. They were cousins; one male, one female.

In the second case, the situation was very similar. The neighborhood had been experiencing a few robberies, including this man. So, he again was accused of setting a trap by leaving the garage door open while he’s sat on a step with his rifle waiting for the subject to walk in. So, here comes an exchange student from a foreign country walking down the street trying to figure out which house is his. He sees the open garage door and investigators believed he may have thought, “Oh good. They left the door open for me.” So, he walks in and BANG! Another dead kid.

The results in both cases were the same. Both men were charged with numerous counts, including first degree murder and both men were found guilty. The sentences were also the same. Both men received life w/o parole.


----------



## norman (Jun 12, 2019)

As our country (United States) moves toward lawlessness as in many other countries it is becoming concerning for *all* and even more so for* seniors*.  It is an every day occurrence for  robbers, many are youth who just bash the door in and rob and sometimes kill the people inside.  I have my guns registered, but never liked the law because when they take our guns away they know who have them.


----------



## Trade (Jun 12, 2019)




----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 12, 2019)

There are very few verifiable facts in the original post. Maybe the name , and a police report, as to what really happened. before we get all hot and bothered about what might have happened, it would be nice to get facts.


----------



## Trade (Jun 12, 2019)

_*"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" 

*_It's crystal clear to me, as it should be to any reasonable and logical individual that this man's constitutional rights are being infringed on in a big way. It's a travesty that certain jurisdictions in the United States have been able to get away with passing gun regulation laws that are so clearly in violation of the 2nd amendment. This case should not even go to trial. The prosecutor should drop all charges against this man and these unconstitutional laws of the state of New York should be stripped from the books as should any similar laws in any other jurisdictions within the United States.


----------



## norman (Jun 12, 2019)

That is the way I see it.    





Trade said:


>


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 12, 2019)

I don't think that man would have been arrested in Colorado either, you have a right to protect yourself in your home if necessary.  I don't know about having to register firearms that were inherited, seems there's always new laws popping up in various states, I don't think they're all the same.


----------



## Lara (Jun 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> _*"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> *_It's crystal clear to me, as it should be to any reasonable and logical individual that this man's constitutional rights are being infringed on in a big way. It's a travesty that certain jurisdictions in the United States have been able to get away with passing gun regulation laws that are so clearly in violation of the 2nd amendment. This case should not even go to trial. The prosecutor should drop all charges against this man and these unconstitutional laws of the state of New York should be stripped from the books as should any similar laws in any other jurisdictions within the United States.


[SUB]I have to agree with you that it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, there is a growing number people that don't respect our Constitution, don't know what it says, or think they're above it and figure they will have enough followers to back their opinion. They teach their children to respect authority and then they don't do it themselves. Children learn by example so it's only going to get worse.

[/SUB]


----------



## Sunny (Jun 12, 2019)

> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ​



That's the Second Amendment, folks. Obviously, it was referring to a well regulated militia, not some guy in his home with a gun collection. So what part of it was being violated here, Lara?


----------



## Trade (Jun 12, 2019)

Sunny said:


> That's the Second Amendment, folks. Obviously, it was referring to a well regulated militia, not some guy in his home with a gun collection. So what part of it was being violated here, Lara?




Bullshit. The second amendment was intended to apply to EVERYONE! 

<font size="4">


----------



## 911 (Jun 12, 2019)

Any person in the U.S. has the right to own and bear firearms for legal use.

There is also this thing called “preemption of powers.” How it works is that one governing authority can trump another body of government. IOW, if a city has a gun law, the state can pass their own law that would trump the city law, and the federal government could then pass a law that would trump the state law. That’s pretty much how preemption of power works. 

Municipalities, states and federal government all have the right to make laws that govern firearms. However, if someone should decide to challenge it, the final say would come from the Supreme Court. It’s then up to them to interpret the laws that Congress has set forth. 

The other issue being discussed is that this fellow that shot his inherited handgun did so unlawfully according to New York State laws. Of course, he has the right to appeal and it could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they would decide to hear it. 

Is there more to this story than we know? I guess that we’ll have to wait and see.


----------



## chic (Jun 12, 2019)

Sunny said:


> That's the Second Amendment, folks. Obviously, it was referring to a well regulated militia, not some guy in his home with a gun collection. So what part o.f it was being violated here, Lara?



I agree Sunny. Let's get it straight. A militia is a militia and an individual is an individual. People seem to think human life is of less value these days. There are too many guns and too many people eager to use them to solve every problem. Death is final. It's something to think about.


----------



## squatting dog (Jun 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> _*"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> *_It's crystal clear to me, as it should be to any reasonable and logical individual that this man's constitutional rights are being infringed on in a big way. It's a travesty that certain jurisdictions in the United States have been able to get away with passing gun regulation laws that are so clearly in violation of the 2nd amendment. This case should not even go to trial. The prosecutor should drop all charges against this man and these unconstitutional laws of the state of New York should be stripped from the books as should any similar laws in any other jurisdictions within the United States.



Spot on Trade. and let me take this one step further.

All men (and women) by their essential nature have the RIGHT to defend themselves and their 
property from harm or oppression, be it by other individuals, or by the state; 
through whatever means necessary up to and including lethal force.


That RIGHT is fundamental to our nature as sentient persons. No law or amendment 
granted that RIGHT. No repeal or passage of any amendment may abrogate that RIGHT. 
No repeal or passage of any law may take away that RIGHT. No government or society 
may say that RIGHT is invalid, unnecessary, or “uncivilized”. That RIGHT is absolute.


The second amendment recognizes that RIGHT, and specifically limits the governments 
ability to attempt to infringe upon it.


Some may say that such a RIGHT is unnecessary, or outdated, or that the constitution 
and second amendment did not recognize and should not be construed as protecting 
that RIGHT.


They are wrong; by ignorance, by denial, or by design.


If you want proof you need not look far...


Sudan, Rwanda, Liberia, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Congo, Germany, Armenia, Russia... 
History has proven again and again; the only thing that ensures against genocide, 
is an armed, and educated populace. The Warsaw ghetto should be all the example you 
ever need.


It is our duty as free men, and as citizens, to ensure that our populace remains 
both educated, and armed.


----------



## 911 (Jun 12, 2019)

chic said:


> I agree Sunny. Let's get it straight. A militia is a militia and an individual is an individual. People seem to think human life is of less value these days. There are too many guns and too many people eager to use them to solve every problem. Death is final. It's something to think about.



I think the problem here is in the word Militia. The consensus of legal experts have stated that when the Bill of Rights was written what our forefathers had in mind was that any individual could act as a militia to defend their body and property. 

But, there are varying opinions. To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never interpreted this phrase.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 12, 2019)

A well regulated militia.  What does that mean?

Regulated by who?


----------



## Manatee (Jun 12, 2019)

He should have dumped the 2 thugs in the river and let the fish sort them out.

Another good reason why I will not even visit NYC.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 12, 2019)

Google is your friend.  The man is out of jail, released on own recognizance.  

https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2019...jail-da-talks-about-preliminary-findings.html


----------



## Trade (Jun 12, 2019)

chic said:


> I agree Sunny. Let's get it straight. A militia is a militia and an individual is an individual.



True, however the second amendment covers both. The first part of it speaks to the militia and the second part speaks to the individual. What else could the term "the people" mean but individuals? 

As for gun laws all they are good for is to make it a pain in the butt for responsible law abiding citizens like this poor schmuck to have guns. They are no more than a speed bump at best for criminals.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> True, however the second amendment covers both. The first part of it speaks to the militia and the second part speaks to the individual. What else could the term "the people" mean but individuals?
> 
> As for gun laws all they are good for is to make it a pain in the butt for responsible law abiding citizens like this poor schmuck to have guns. They are no more than a speed bump at best for criminals.



I agree.


----------



## Trade (Jun 13, 2019)

I would like to take this opportunity to make one thing clear. Please do not construe from my position on guns that I am on the far right political. I am in fact on the far left. However, we on the far left like our guns too.:bigwink:


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 13, 2019)

I think if your life is in danger then taking a life is justified.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 14, 2019)

"The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and *almost killed*."

And there lies the fatal flaw in logic continually invoked by the pro-gun lobby when it suits their proclivities. Earlier in the article, it made clear that the burglars were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the homeowner with an itchy finger. 
But the writer of the article hopes the readers will forget that fact, and go along with his proud bellowing about how this man's life was in danger from two unarmed burglars sneaking around.
Now, before I'm accused of being pro-burglar, I'm not. He certainly had a right to be alarmed, as we all would be. But did that give him the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner?  What if it had been two kids playing a prank?  He was apparently a good shot. Couldn't he have just fired off a warning shot to scare them away, or lock himself in a room and call 911? Even if he was justified in shooting at them, the way the article immediately jumps from saying the burglars were unarmed to saying he had a right to shoot them because his life was in danger, weakens the whole pro-gun case.

​


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 14, 2019)

Sunny said:


> "The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and *almost killed*."
> 
> And there lies the fatal flaw in logic continually invoked by the pro-gun lobby when it suits their proclivities. Earlier in the article, it made clear that the burglars were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the homeowner with an itchy finger.
> But the writer of the article hopes the readers will forget that fact, and go along with his proud bellowing about how this man's life was in danger from two unarmed burglars sneaking around.
> ...



So "early in the article" it said the burglars were unarmed, but did the homeowner KNOW that??   Sorry, but if two strangers broke into my home, I don't immediately suspect they are here for any good purpose.   I have guns... and I would probably react the same as that homeowner out of fear.  

Note to burglars:   Enter (unlawfully) at your own risk.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 14, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> I think if your life is in danger then taking a life is justified.





C'est Moi said:


> Sorry, but if two strangers broke into my home, I don't immediately suspect they are here for any good purpose.   I have guns... and I would probably react the same as that homeowner out of fear.
> 
> Note to burglars:   Enter (unlawfully) at your own risk.



I agree with both of you, I'd do the same thing if intruders broke into my home and would not stop at my warning.  The aunt of the intruder was no angel, she was a criminal herself and very capable of doing harm to the man with the help of her young nephew. Glad the home owner is out of jail.  More here.  



> Wolber said he fully believes Stolarczyk  was justified in shooting and killing the two intruders and doesn’t  expect any more charges. He plans to ask the district attorney to  dismiss the gun charge as well “in the interest of justice.”
> 
> Patricia  Talerico was currently on parole for a weapons charge. She was  sentenced to 1 1/2 years to 3 years in prison for third-degree attempted  criminal possession of a weapon in 2016, according to the state  Department of Corrections and Community Supervision records. She was  released in June 2018.
> 
> She also served time in state prison for grand larceny in 2010; she was released in 2011, state records show.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 14, 2019)

Killing someone is so final.  It can't be corrected.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 14, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Killing someone is so final.  It can't be corrected.



Yep.   So potential burglars should consider whether they are ready to meet their maker.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 14, 2019)

It said in one of the articles I read that the arrest was _only _due to the gun inherited from the man's father was not registered under his name.  They said something like this was generally considered a misdemeanor, so the charges would be reduced.


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 14, 2019)

C'est Moi said:


> Yep.   So potential burglars should consider whether they are ready to meet their maker.



Well said.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 14, 2019)

And potential executioners and trigger-happy gun nuts should consider whether they are ready to go to prison.


----------



## norman (Jun 14, 2019)

Doesn't sound like your home has ever been burglarized...  It leaves a thought and feeling that you were violated and an unexplainable uneasy feeling.  These days robbers are busting open doors and robbing and beating people and many time they are seniors.  I now have a German Shephred dog and have always had guns.  I don't think you are pro-burglar, but I do think you are not _street wise._  I do beleive that if we ever lose the right to own guns *only robbers will have guns.  *


Sunny said:


> "The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and *almost killed*."
> 
> And there lies the fatal flaw in logic continually invoked by the pro-gun lobby when it suits their proclivities. Earlier in the article, it made clear that the burglars were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the homeowner with an itchy finger.
> But the writer of the article hopes the readers will forget that fact, and go along with his proud bellowing about how this man's life was in danger from two unarmed burglars sneaking around.
> ...


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 14, 2019)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Sunny, with all respect to you, I don't see a person protecting his or her life, family, home, or possessions as "trigger happy gun-nuts". 

I'm sure you heard of Dr. Petit in CT that night two intruders came in. Had Dr. Petit been armed when he investigated the break-in, he wouldn't have been bashed in the head, tied up and thrown down the basement stairs unconscious.

His wife would not have been raped, and taken to the bank by one to get them cash, while the two daughters, ages 17 and 11 were tied to their beds at home by the other, raped, doused with gasoline and set on fire, alive.

They killed the wife, too. The Dr. regained consciousness, heard the men upstairs and called to a neighbor for help. Too late.

I honestly could not have blamed Dr. Petit for executing those monsters by shooting them before losing his family.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 14, 2019)

Norman, considering that you know nothing about me, you're jumping to a lot of unfounded conclusions. Yes, my home has been burglarized, fortunately only once. It was the night of my daughter's high school graduation. There was an article in the Post about all the burglaries that took place that night in suburban DC.

They must have been the world's dumbest burglars. They "specialized" in silver, hitting mostly the dining room and helping themselves to silver plated flatware, trays, serving pieces, etc. Yet, they left the most valuable piece of silver we had lying there in its case, on the dining room table. It was my daughter's flute, easily worth more than all the stuff they helped themselves to.  

Yes, I was angry (and halfway amused at the same time), but never had any desire to own a gun, then or now. "Stuff" just isn't that important to me.  This happened im 1980.  In the years since then, enough harm has been done by the proliferation of guns to make the guns much more of an atrocity than the theft of a few items, especially when done by unarmed burglars. It's just a matter of which is the worse offense, stealing or shooting burglars, who could just as easily be kids, teenaged drug addicts, mentally sick people, etc. as the rapists and head bashers, Radish.


----------



## norman (Jun 14, 2019)

I certainly respect your feelings.  Each of us are different, as for me I am still mad at the person or persons who broke into my home and took jewelry, some that can not be replaced.  I was trusting and never thought it would happen to me.  If I was to find them I would hope for jail time.  I now have a security system and can even view the rooms on my cell phone when gone. If it happens again the police can do it or me... 





Sunny said:


> Norman, considering that you know nothing about me, you're jumping to a lot of unfounded conclusions. Yes, my home has been burglarized, fortunately only once. It was the night of my daughter's high school graduation. There was an article in the Post about all the burglaries that took place that night in suburban DC.
> 
> They must have been the world's dumbest burglars. They "specialized" in silver, hitting mostly the dining room and helping themselves to silver plated flatware, trays, serving pieces, etc. Yet, they left the most valuable piece of silver we had lying there in its case, on the dining room table. It was my daughter's flute, easily worth more than all the stuff they helped themselves to.
> 
> Yes, I was angry (and halfway amused at the same time), but never had any desire to own a gun, then or now. "Stuff" just isn't that important to me.  This happened im 1980.  In the years since then, enough harm has been done by the proliferation of guns to make the guns much more of an atrocity than the theft of a few items, especially when done by unarmed burglars. It's just a matter of which is the worse offense, stealing or shooting burglars, who could just as easily be kids, teenaged drug addicts, mentally sick people, etc. as the rapists and head bashers, Radish.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 14, 2019)

Sunny said:


> And potential executioners and trigger-happy gun nuts should consider whether they are ready to go to prison.



I agree. I can imagine there could be situations where I might attempt to kill someone to stop them hurting my family. In that case I might discover an inner ferocity that is more instinctual than reasoned. However, I would expect to be charged and face a court for judgement.

I would never consider killing someone to stop them taking my TV or jewellery, for example. Theft should never be considered a capital offence.

IMO, every life is precious and every sudden death must be taken seriously. That is why we have coroners courts and autopsies. That is why we hold reckless or negligent drivers accountable for road traffic fatalities.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 14, 2019)

C'est Moi said:


> So "early in the article" it said the burglars were unarmed, but did the homeowner KNOW that??   Sorry, but if two strangers broke into my home, I don't immediately suspect they are here for any good purpose.   I have guns... and I would probably react the same as that homeowner out of fear.
> 
> Note to burglars:   Enter (unlawfully) at your own risk.



I strongly agree!  Regardless of their age or whether they were armed, the burglars broke in to this man's home, which is by its very nature a threat to him,and is by the way against the law.  If somebody comes crashing into my home, I am certainly not going to ask them exactly what their intentions are, i.e., burglary,rape or murder, or how old they are, or whether they are armed.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 14, 2019)

Sunny said:


> "The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and *almost killed*."
> 
> And there lies the fatal flaw in logic continually invoked by the pro-gun lobby when it suits their proclivities. Earlier in the article, it made clear that the burglars were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the homeowner with an itchy finger.
> But the writer of the article hopes the readers will forget that fact, and go along with his proud bellowing about how this man's life was in danger from two unarmed burglars sneaking around.
> ...



Lock myself into a room and call 911? -- they'd have done whatever  they wanted and been gone long before police arrived -- it's not  instant, you know.

IMHO, and in my state, the homeowner DOES have  the right to shoot an intruder into his home.  And I do not believe  that homeowner had an "itchy finger;" he was rightfully protecting  himself.

And just how does saying the homeowner had a right to  shoot them because his life was in danger "weaken the whole pro-gun  case?"


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 15, 2019)

C'est Moi said:


> Yep.   So potential burglars should consider whether they are ready to meet their maker.



Not that simple. There is always an inquiry especially if the victims are unarmed.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 15, 2019)

> So "early in the article" it said the burglars were unarmed, but did the homeowner KNOW that??



So, C'est Moi and Butterfly, what if you are walking down the street with your gun in a handy holster, and somebody is walking toward you, looking like a sleazy, suspicious character. He makes eye contact with you. How do you know he is not armed?

Bang!!!


----------



## Trade (Jun 15, 2019)

Sunny said:


> So, C'est Moi and Butterfly, what if you are walking down the street with your gun in a handy holster, and somebody is walking toward you, looking like a sleazy, suspicious character. He makes eye contact with you. How do you know he is not armed?
> 
> Bang!!!



Someone that is walking down the street and you "think" they look suspicious, is not the same as someone that has invaded your home by forced entry. Travon Martin being a prime example. As far as I am concerned in that case George Zimmerman was a murderer. However if Travon Martin had broken into Zimmerman's house Zimmerman would have had every right to kill him IMO. 

I hope that helps you understand where I draw my lines.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 15, 2019)

Trade said:


> Someone that is walking down the street and you "think" they look suspicious, is not the same as someone that has invaded your home by forced entry. Travon Martin being a prime example. As far as I am concerned in that case George Zimmerman was a murderer. However if Travon Martin had broken into Zimmerman's house Zimmerman would have had every right to kill him IMO.
> 
> I hope that helps you understand where I draw my lines.



I agree.

We all have a basic right to be safe and secure in our own homes and to protect ourselves from anyone that violates that right.


----------



## Trade (Jun 15, 2019)

I guess I've been lucky in that I have never had anyone break into my house. I've had stuff taken out of my driveway, and my carport and a utility shed. The utility shed burglary consisted of the taking of several fishing outfits. I chalked that one up to Karma resulting from the bait shack burglary that I participated in with some of my friends back in the day. Details can be found under my thread "Trades boring stories" in the diary forum. 

One night about 10 years ago while I was up late watching TV there came a knock at my front door around midnight. My first thought was to grab my house gun which at that time was a Model 1911 .45 caliber automatic. But then I thought, nah, you're just being paranoid. So I just looked through the little peephole, saw that it was two women and opened it. They said they had been visiting down the street and left their lights on and now their battery was dead and did I have any jumper cables they could borrow? So I said sure and got in my car drove down to where their's was parked, helped them jump start it and that was the end of it. 

Looking back on it, I was stupid. I should have gone to the door armed with my .45. So what if it freaked them out when I answered the door like that? When someone knocks on your door at midnight that's a reasonable response. And seeing through the peephole that it was two women didn't mean much. They could have had a couple of dudes waiting just out of sight to jump me when I opened it. So if that ever happens again I will get my gun first, then go to the door. 

Mistake number two was going out to where their car was without my gun. Again, this could have been a set-up. If it ever happens again I will have my gun with me.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 15, 2019)

Trade, you should have shot and killed them the moment you laid eyes upon them.


----------



## Trade (Jun 15, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Trade, you should have shot and killed them the moment you laid eyes upon them.



I probably shouldn't laugh about a subject like this but you are funny!








:lofl:


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 15, 2019)

Sunny said:


> So, C'est Moi and Butterfly, what if you are walking down the street with your gun in a handy holster, and somebody is walking toward you, looking like a sleazy, suspicious character. He makes eye contact with you. How do you know he is not armed?
> 
> Bang!!!



That's ridiculous, and the conversation is about criminals breaking into a home.   But you know that.  

Your claim that you were "amused" by your home being robbed sounds absurd.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 15, 2019)

C'est moi, we were amused by the fact that the jerks left the most valuable item behind, because they didn't recognize a musical instrument case.

Aunt Bea, about the "feeling safe in your home" part, what if the intruder turns out to be a disturbed (or not too bright) kid, or a confused elderly person?  Do you still shoot first and ask questions later?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 15, 2019)

I wonder whether people advocating shoot first policies understand how blood thirsty Americans are regarded in other countries.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 15, 2019)

Sunny said:


> C'est moi, we were amused by the fact that the jerks left the most valuable item behind, because they didn't recognize a musical instrument case.
> 
> Aunt Bea, about the "feeling safe in your home" part, what if the intruder turns out to be a disturbed (or not too bright) kid, or a confused elderly person?  Do you still shoot first and ask questions later?



IMO if a person is capable of entering my locked apartment without my permission they have to be willing to take me as they find me and accept the consequences of their actions.

I find it disturbing that you have more empathy for the criminal than for the victim in a home invasion.


----------



## Camper6 (Jun 16, 2019)

Trade said:


> I guess I've been lucky in that I have never had anyone break into my house. I've had stuff taken out of my driveway, and my carport and a utility shed. The utility shed burglary consisted of the taking of several fishing outfits. I chalked that one up to Karma resulting from the bait shack burglary that I participated in with some of my friends back in the day. Details can be found under my thread "Trades boring stories" in the diary forum.
> 
> One night about 10 years ago while I was up late watching TV there came a knock at my front door around midnight. My first thought was to grab my house gun which at that time was a Model 1911 .45 caliber automatic. But then I thought, nah, you're just being paranoid. So I just looked through the little peephole, saw that it was two women and opened it. They said they had been visiting down the street and left their lights on and now their battery was dead and did I have any jumper cables they could borrow? So I said sure and got in my car drove down to where their's was parked, helped them jump start it and that was the end of it.
> 
> ...



You feel bad because you acted like a normal person would?  Don't second guess yourself.  You did the right thing.

Well maybe back in the good old days you wouldn't have second thoughts about it.  But in this day and age and all the media reporting?  It's a different ball game.

I don't live in the U.S. but if I lived there I would definitely have a weapon. Even now here in Canada we are seeing more illegal guns seized mainly from the drug dealers.


----------



## Lara (Jun 16, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> I wonder whether people advocating shoot first policies understand how blood thirsty Americans are regarded in other countries.


Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your intention with this comment. I'm sorry but is it really meant to be as mean and ugly as it looks? I don't think this thread is at all about "blood thirsty Americans". This victim of breaking and entering...a homeowner in his 60's...was upstairs when intruders came into his home to rob him a second time, they didn't leave when asked to, they continued toward him, and he thought his life was in eminent danger.

Yes, there are incidences of terrorism and mass murders by mentally sick people in our country but that doesn't define "Americans". Our media also doesn't hide anything...actually they often sensationalize it and they often don't report the good news. There are a few responsible News Networks without a chip on their shoulder but they are hard to find.

I know you have made unkind judgmental posts regarding Americans before so I may be super sensitive to your post. For that I apologize if that is indeed the case. And yes, we all do understand the stereotype that some people of other countries have labeled us with. We also have friends in other countries who respect us and appreciate the good things we do.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 16, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> I wonder whether people advocating shoot first policies understand how blood thirsty Americans are regarded in other countries.



I would shoot an intruder in my home and don't care what anyone anywhere thinks about it.   If they're in my home, they've made it past a locked door and have no good intentions toward me.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 16, 2019)

C'est Moi said:


> Yep.   So potential burglars should consider whether they are ready to meet their maker.



Yes.  Several years ago a father whose son was killed during a home invasion spoke out and said his son should've been punished but didn't deserve to die.  I know he was grieving, but I can't help but wonder would he have asked an an intruder inside his home why they were there, if they were armed before defending himself.


----------



## DaveA (Jun 16, 2019)

Does it ever occur to anyone that many folks own guns, have them locked away for safety, usually unloaded, and would have a hell of a time getting to them in time to do any good.  I've owned a gun (or guns) since 1945 and never thought of it as a defense weapon.  I have no thrill killer instinct , almost hoping for a break-in so I'll get to man up and put him away.  The guns that I own have been for hunting, and target shooting but aside from trips to the range, have never, ever carried one around for so called self defense.  

I've never had a home break-in or been accosted at home, on the street ,  or in my travels.   The fear is largely in the mind of the individual, many of who dream of the chance to put someone down.  If you live in an area where you're constantly being assaulted or your home is under siege by some unknown invaders, it might be time to move.  In *most* parts of this country,  your chances of being attacked are nil.  The only people needing to live in fear are the regular readers of the NRA's column, "The Armed Citizen".  Those poor souls are under constant attack.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 16, 2019)

DaveA said:


> I've never had a home break-in or been accosted at home, on the street ,  or in my travels.   The fear is largely in the mind of the individual, many of who dream of the chance to put someone down.  If you live in an area where you're constantly being assaulted or your home is under siege by some unknown invaders, it might be time to move.  In *most* parts of this country,  your chances of being attacked are nil.  The only people needing to live in fear are the regular readers of the NRA's column, "The Armed Citizen".  Those poor souls are under constant attack.



My home isn't in a dangerous area, but it is isolated.  I'm the end house down a long gravel road with three houses.  The gravel road is connected to a nearby highway by a three mile paved road that winds through wooded hills with no houses along that road.   If someone is in my house, they've come through or bypassed all that through the woods, have broken my lock and have somehow silenced the outside watchdog and my little yapping mutt.   There are break-ins in rural areas precisely because of the isolation, but the beauty of living in the country far outweighs the risk.  Taking sensible precautions such as owning dogs, having a gun handy and being mentally prepared to use it are worth it to me.


----------



## squatting dog (Jun 16, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> Mine home isn't in a dangerous area, but it is isolated.  I'm the end house down a long gravel road with three houses.  The gravel road is connected to a nearby highway by a three mile paved road winding through wooded hills with no houses along that road.   If someone is in my house, they've come through or bypassed all that through the woods, have broken my lock and have somehow silenced the outside watchdog and my little yapping mutt.   There are break-ins in rural areas precisely because of the isolation, but the beauty of living in the country far outweighs the risk.  Taking sensible precautions such as owning dogs, having a gun handy and being mentally prepared to use it are worth it to me.



Amen. I too live far out in the country and for the same reasons, own and keep a loaded gun handy. Last year, the wife was threatened by some lowlife who found his way up the dead end drive of ours and figured it looked like an easy target. Wife pulled a gun and told him to leave. Fortunately he chose to leave. We have no cell service or land line (we use the internet phone to call for help) where we live and when the sheriff arrived, he told us he'd have no problem with us shooting an intruder. Some people just don't realize that it takes the law on average about 20-30 minutes to respond to a call out here. This all said, we are far from being a "blood thirsty American" and truly take offense at that suggestion. Perhaps people in other countries should turn of the news and try searching the real facts before spouting off. 
I have had to kill people while in the service and I hope and pray that my wife never has to live with that feeling, but, choosing between taking a life or possibly giving up your own, there really is only one choice.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 16, 2019)

Lara said:


> Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your intention with this comment. I'm sorry but is it really meant to be as mean and ugly as it looks? I don't think this thread is at all about "blood thirsty Americans". This victim of breaking and entering...a homeowner in his 60's...was upstairs when intruders came into his home to rob him a second time, they didn't leave when asked to, they continued toward him, and he thought his life was in eminent danger.
> 
> Yes, there are incidences of terrorism and mass murders by mentally sick people in our country but that doesn't define "Americans". Our media also doesn't hide anything...actually they often sensationalize it and they often don't report the good news. There are a few responsible News Networks without a chip on their shoulder but they are hard to find.
> 
> I know you have made unkind judgmental posts regarding Americans before so I may be super sensitive to your post. For that I apologize if that is indeed the case. And yes, we all do understand the stereotype that some people of other countries have labeled us with. We also have friends in other countries who respect us and appreciate the good things we do.



My apologies, Lara. I have spent some time in US many years ago and I found everyone to be generous and friendly and I have admired your leaders when they have acted on the world stage with integrity and principle. It is for this reason that I find it hard to reconcile the many calls for blood made on this forum. It is the shoot first policy that concerns me. No questions asked, no hesitation because someone might be a threat. In the case of a threat to life I can understand it, but a threat to property is very different IMO. To my ears (eyes?} there seems to be a triumphant tone, the same tone I hear when the death penalty is mentioned. It is very chilling to me because it seems so harsh.

Gotta go now but perhaps we could talk more later.


----------



## Lara (Jun 17, 2019)

I appreciate your apology and welcome your opinion on gun control and on individual use but my post was about your offensive blame, as you used a broad brush to paint a cultural stereotype of Americans by blaring out the offensive term "Blood Thirsty Americans" and "the many calls for blood made on this forum". That's name-calling the American members participating in this thread who just have a different opinion than yours regarding when and how to protect yourself and your family. Disagreeing is okay but name-calling, offending people from other countries, and rudeness is not even allowed on this friendly forum site.

There is a fine line as to when to pull the trigger on a stranger who has entered your home or schoolroom uninvited. It's a split second choice...your life or theirs...30 school children or the intruder's. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion without being called cheap offensive names.


----------



## Lara (Jun 17, 2019)

You know what Warrigal? It's okay. 

I don't think you meant it so strongly. Life is hard and stretches us all. 

We all have our moments. And that includes me. It struck a chord but I'm over it *handshake*

It struck a chord because I love my country and my countrymen...with all our warts.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 17, 2019)

Thank you for extending your hand in friendship, Lara. That is most generous of you but you did mistake my meaning. I am trying to think of a way to clarify my intended meaning but everything I think of just seems to make things worse, so I will just leave bad enough alone and apologise once more.


----------



## Lara (Jun 17, 2019)

I just had a bone-chilling moment of "coincidence" while simply looking for "happy music" to add to my playlist. I like Carole King's "Beautiful" and "I Feel The Earth Move" but the next song of hers was "Smackwater Jack". I loved the familiar upbeat sound but had forgotten what it was about. Then the lyrics started...eerily along the lines of this thread and some recent mass church murders in the news . 

Smackwater Jack bought a shotgun because he was "in the mood for a confrontation...so he let loose and shot down his church congregation...and didn't think about the noose". Then, here it comes...

"You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand...when he doesn't want to understand". 

That's one point in the column for those on the side of "shoot first"...there's no time to talk and you can't shoot without a gun. There are now parishioners who are trained and carry a gun because churches are targeted. Sad times.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 17, 2019)

Warrigal and Lara, I agree with you both.

Lara is right, most Americans are not a bloodthirsty tribe out for vengeance, although particular individuals may sound that way at times. Remember, there are many millions of us, occupying every part of the spectrum.  Unfortunately, it's always the loudmouths who get all the attention. And as someone on the anti-gun end of the spectrum, I believe the NRA and its followers have had a disproportionate amount of influence on legislation. But I agree with Lara, it's unfortunate if the gun-toting, shootm-up mob come to represent the entire country.

And Warrigal, I also agree with you. The equation of property with human life is used much too often. Or even somebody's split-second perception of an imagined danger. (A young man shot and killed by a security officer because he was reaching for his wallet to show ID?  A child or a neighbor who could be confused and wandering into the wrong house? Etc.) Having those damn guns constantly loaded and at the ready makes it much more likely that someone will be shot, who is not any threat to the life or safety of the resident. 

I do think too many Americans have watched too many movies of the old-fashioned western variety. And clearly, it is much too easy for the mentally disturbed to legally go into a store and buy any kind of weapon they want. Those facts are obvious to nearly every American.


----------



## norman (Jun 17, 2019)

I'm with you on that





AnnieA said:


> I would shoot an intruder in my home and don't care what anyone anywhere thinks about it.   If they're in my home, they've made it past a locked door and have no good intentions toward me.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jun 17, 2019)

So the NY law says you must allow intruders to kill you before you are allowed to defend yourself with an antique. Accordingly, you can't even hit them with your fists if they are not rgestered with the great stateof NY.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 17, 2019)

I would try to shoot them in the leg, or anywhere below the waist. Or just showing a weapon and just trying to make them wanting to run. if I were living alone and kind of careless about locking up, I would seriously consider getting a gun.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 17, 2019)

Olivia said:


> I would try to shoot them in the leg, or anywhere below the waist. Or just showing a weapon and just trying to make them wanting to run. if I were living alone and kind of careless about locking up, I would seriously consider getting a gun.



Why would you be careless about locking up, then shoot someone who took advantage of your carelessness?  Carelessness and gun ownership isn't a good mix. 



As for shooting in the leg, if the intruder is armed, that's likely to get you killed.  Someone who has broken into your home with intent to rob, rape or worse is already amped up on adrenaline even if they don't have other drugs on board.  You're not going to stop someone high on adrenaline and/or drugs unless you hit a vital organ. 

Before I even purchased my gun, I took an advanced handgun course.  The instructor stressed making sure you only use your gun when threatened--in my case, that's if they've broken into my house or if outside the home, they've made an obvious move to assault me.  She also stressed that if you're not prepared to use your gun to actually STOP a person who is a threat to you, then you shouldn't own a gun. She was also very firm about being certain of danger before ever showing your gun. You don't show it until you're at the point you're certain you have to use it and are prepared to stop them which means hitting a vital organ. Hitting a vital organ may or may not be fatal, but it's a risk you have  to take if you're using a gun on a person who is threatening you. 

  I wish every gun owner had to take this woman's class. In addition to discouraging gun ownership without the mindset to use it decisively, she also was very firm about people who should not carry guns including people with fiery tempers (that included her husband), people who are on prescription medications that impact judgement and people who are overly nervous. 

Watch this and you'll see that you can put a lot of bullets into a amped up robber without stopping him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEOvJORCczk

About 1:30 in, they've hit him multiple times and he still manages to grab the mom and try to wrestle her gun away.


All that being said, I wish we lived in a world without guns, but we don't.


----------



## Olivia (Jun 17, 2019)

> Why would you be careless about locking up, then shoot someone who took advantage of your carelessness? Carelessness and gun ownership isn't a good mix.



I wouldn't be. That's why I said IF. I NEVER leave any of my doors or windows unlocked ever. But IF I started getting careless because of elderly memory problems I would consider a gun and probably shoot an innocent person, like say as if my home was burning and I didn't know it and a fireman was trying to get me out, If I had a gun under my pillow, I might shoot him.


----------



## Trade (Jun 17, 2019)

My son's place was broken into once. It was back when he was in college in North Carolina. He was living in 1/2 of this dumpy duplex off campus and he came home one night and found his door ajar. When he opened the door wider the burglar ran out past him. My son tried to grab the guy as he went out but he was carrying a six pack of beer so the intruder managed to get by him. As the guy was running away my son pulled one of the cans of beer out of the plastic six pack holder and threw it at the guy. It hit him in the shoulder and the guy gave out a yelp but just kept running. But it did mess up his stride enough that he hit the side view mirror of his neighbors pickup truck and broke it as he ran away. 

When my son called the cops and reported it the cop that came out said he shouldn't have thrown the beer can at the guy because if he had injured him he would have been in trouble because the guy was running away and not a threat. On top of that his next door neighbor wanted him to pay for fixing his mirror. But my son refused to do that.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 17, 2019)

Sunny said:


> So, C'est Moi and Butterfly, what if you are walking down the street with your gun in a handy holster, and somebody is walking toward you, looking like a sleazy, suspicious character. He makes eye contact with you. How do you know he is not armed?
> 
> Bang!!!



That is an entirely different scenario.  Walking down the street is far different than someone forcing his way into your home.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 18, 2019)

US gun deaths per 100,000 population: 120
Australia gun deaths per 100,000 population: 13

Speaks volumes, doesn't it?


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 19, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Warrigal and Lara, I agree with you both.
> 
> Lara is right, most Americans are not a bloodthirsty tribe out for vengeance, although particular individuals may sound that way at times. Remember, there are many millions of us, occupying every part of the spectrum.  Unfortunately, it's always the loudmouths who get all the attention. And as someone on the anti-gun end of the spectrum, I believe the NRA and its followers have had a disproportionate amount of influence on legislation. But I agree with Lara, it's unfortunate if the gun-toting, shootm-up mob come to represent the entire country.
> 
> ...



A child or confused neighbor would not be breaking into a house.  They might wander in if the door is standing open; but nobody "breaks into" a house because they are confused or a child.  Breaking into a house is a conscious act and takes some doing.  And if someone breaks into your house knowing you are there, you can bet your bottom dollar they have no good intentions towards you, whether they are armed or not.  If you think they are just going to take your stuff, wish you a nice day, and then leave politely, you are living on another planet.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 19, 2019)

Butterfly, do you really think the trigger-happy gun owner is going to start analyzing whether this person actually "broke in" (however you choose to define that), or whether they mistakenly walked in?

I live in a hi-rise building where all the corridors look identical. More than once, I've gotten off the elevator at the wrong floor, walked down to "my apartment," and tried to open the door with my key. Only then did I realize I was at the wrong door. What if my key had somehow worked?  I would have "broken in." 

From amused conversations with neighbors, I've learned that this has happened at least once to nearly everyone. And the reason we are amused is that nobody has gotten shot yet.

Your last sentence is typical right-wing scare-mongering. You are trying to suggest that everybody who gets shot is an evil-doer. It' s the same mentality that says that every desperate immigrant is a "criminal alien." What a sad way of looking at the world.


----------



## squatting dog (Jun 19, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Butterfly,
> 
> Your last sentence is typical right-wing scare-mongering. You are trying to suggest that everybody who gets shot is an evil-doer,  It's the same mentality that says that every desperate immigrant is a "criminal alien." What a sad way of looking at the world.



Likewise, your last sentence is typical left-wing drivel. You are trying to suggest that there are no evil doers in the world. Only people who are lost, or disoriented. Then, you appear to have the mentality that every desperate immigrant isn't a criminal. Pardon me... but what part of coming into our country illegally is not a crime?
Must be nice to live in fantasy land.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 19, 2019)

Southern Californians are closely watching the unfolding news about the shooting at the Costco in Corona, CA.  Quick summary: an off-duty armed LAPD officer was shopping in a Costco (that happened to be in an area not served by LAPD) and got into a kerfuffle of some sort with a mentally disabled, non-verbal man who by all accounts was "a gentle giant."  What that kerfuffle consisted of remains to be seen, but the results were that the cop shot the man AND both of his parents, killing the man and wounding the parents to the extent that both are in critical condition.

While I realize, understand and appreciate that most off-duty officers legally carry weapons when out in public, this incident is a perfect example of how having lethal force at one's fingertips can end tragically.  Perhaps the officer was pushed by this man - entirely possible.  But did his actions truly necessitate the loss of his life and the grave wounding of his parents?  I, and many others in our area, highly doubt it.  Why the officer didn't deescalate the situation rather than whipping out his gun is a very big question.

p.s. I am not anti-police, so please don't surmise that from the above.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 19, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Butterfly, do you really think the trigger-happy gun owner is going to start analyzing whether this person actually "broke in" (however you choose to define that), or whether they mistakenly walked in?
> 
> I live in a hi-rise building where all the corridors look identical. More than once, I've gotten off the elevator at the wrong floor, walked down to "my apartment," and tried to open the door with my key. Only then did I realize I was at the wrong door. What if my key had somehow worked?  I would have "broken in."
> 
> ...



Walking to the wrong apartment and trying your key is nothing like breaking and entering. I did not suggest that everyone who gets shot is an evil doer.  What I am emphatically stating (not suggesting) is that anyone who breaks into your home (and I think it's pretty easy for a homeowner to figure out whether someone has broken in or not -- it is usually defined as entering a dwelling without authorization and with some degree of force -- is an intruder breaking the law (and hence an evil-doer, to use your term) and probably does not have good intentions toward the homeowner, and said homeowner has the legal right in most states to defend himself and his home with whatever force he deems necessary once the intruder enters his home.

As to being a right wing fear monger, I am about as far from  right wing as you can get.  What I am is a realist, and I do not intend to wind up a victim of head-in-the-sand thinking bleeding to death on my own floor.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jun 29, 2019)

I don't like guns, I wouldn't want one in my home and I think all the shootings in this country are unfathomable.  Just too much gun violence and deaths. BUT I think this man was within his rights especially since it was the second time these people broke into his home. I don't think he should have been arrested based on my current understanding of this case.


----------

