***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[Apple Jack]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/loudoun-teen-fatally-shot-by-homeowner-identified/2013/03/18/1e8611f8-8fe2-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html

This is brutal. Who among us hasn't accidentally wandered into the wrong house while under the influence?

Accidentally wandered into the wrong house? I've been rip-roaring drunk before in my younger days but never accidentally forced my way into somebody else's house. The article say his friends helped him through the window. Did they get the wrong house too?

It sounds to me like those young men decided to expand their horizons in a negative way by doing a little breaking and entering. Add a little "liquid courage" to the mix and you have a recipe for disaster.

Whoa...you must have been a wild thing in your younger days. It happens. Believe it. I've done it.And people who want to rob houses don't spend all evening out of their own neighborhoods only to come back to their block and break into a house there where somebody is home. I guess it's just a coincidence that the house was the same layout? And that he had snuck out and needed to sneak back in? I wasn't looking to bicker, just didn't need another thread that was inevitably going to end up in a gun circle jerk. Your logic sucks.

And this is why I think gun owners should be required to call all houses with a similar layout to see if there's anyone that snuck out who might be trying to sneak back in drunk.

You seem to think I said something that I didn't.

Well, perhaps you can clean up your message, because right now, the way it's worded, it looks like the homeowner was supposed to know that the teen wasn't a robber but a kid from down the street who snuck out, got drunk and was trying to sneak back into his house which looked identical.

No, that guy was accusing the kid of trying to rob the house. I explained why I, and everybody else interviewed for the story, think he was not.

He was? You have a link to that article, because it doesn't say that in the article that's already linked.

JFC. It was in reference to the comment made in the post I quoted.

Ah, ok. So you're convicting the homeowner based on TPW's comment. That makes sense.

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

 

[timschochet]

Latest Washington Post poll: 91% of Americans want universal background checks.

 

[Rayderr]

if you sneak around at night while intoxicated and don't surrender when somebody fires a warning shot at you point blank, don't be surprised if you get shot.

Why should we believe the homeowner about the warning shot?

Prob because of the gunshot hole in the ceiling?

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

ALL GUNOWNERS ARE GUILTY!!!!!!!

ALL GUNOWNERS ARE INNOCENT!!!!!!

I assure I believe no such thing. But I'm not the one in here trying to come up with some wild theory about how the homeowner killed him in coldblood and then tried to cover it up. If the police find evidence of that they'll arrest him. I doubt some people sitting behind a computer hundreds if not thousands of miles away have been able to crack the case that the police on location have not simply by reading a washington post article.

 

[Rayderr]

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But I'm not the one in here trying to come up with some wild theory about how the homeowner killed him in coldblood and then tried to cover it up. If the police find evidence of that they'll arrest him. I doubt some people sitting behind a computer hundreds if not thousands of miles away have been able to crack the case that the police on location have not simply by reading a washington post article.

What do you mean by "cold blood?" It isn't a wild theory that this guy shot first and asked questions later. That's exactly what a lot of folks in this thread seem to think is the appropriate response if there's an intruder in your house. It seems like a popular view among people that have guns for home protection.

 

[Apple Jack]

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

And?

 

[Rayderr]

But I'm not the one in here trying to come up with some wild theory about how the homeowner killed him in coldblood and then tried to cover it up. If the police find evidence of that they'll arrest him. I doubt some people sitting behind a computer hundreds if not thousands of miles away have been able to crack the case that the police on location have not simply by reading a washington post article.

What do you mean by "cold blood?" It isn't a wild theory that this guy shot first and asked questions later. That's exactly what a lot of folks in this thread seem to think is the appropriate response if there's an intruder in your house. It seems like a popular view among people that have guns for home protection.

But the mere fact that the kid was in his home gave him legal grounds to shoot. A warning shot is not needed.

Virginia law is largely silent on when a homeowner can shoot an intruder. But years of legal precedent give wide latitude to people who fear for their safety when someone breaks into their homes.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But I'm not the one in here trying to come up with some wild theory about how the homeowner killed him in coldblood and then tried to cover it up. If the police find evidence of that they'll arrest him. I doubt some people sitting behind a computer hundreds if not thousands of miles away have been able to crack the case that the police on location have not simply by reading a washington post article.

What do you mean by "cold blood?" It isn't a wild theory that this guy shot first and asked questions later. That's exactly what a lot of folks in this thread seem to think is the appropriate response if there's an intruder in your house. It seems like a popular view among people that have guns for home protection.

But the mere fact that the kid was in his home gave him legal grounds to shoot. A warning shot is not needed.

Virginia law is largely silent on when a homeowner can shoot an intruder. But years of legal precedent give wide latitude to people who fear for their safety when someone breaks into their homes.

When did we start talking about whether this guy acted legally?

 

[timschochet]

But I'm not the one in here trying to come up with some wild theory about how the homeowner killed him in coldblood and then tried to cover it up. If the police find evidence of that they'll arrest him. I doubt some people sitting behind a computer hundreds if not thousands of miles away have been able to crack the case that the police on location have not simply by reading a washington post article.

What do you mean by "cold blood?" It isn't a wild theory that this guy shot first and asked questions later. That's exactly what a lot of folks in this thread seem to think is the appropriate response if there's an intruder in your house. It seems like a popular view among people that have guns for home protection.

It goes beyond that. Remember Joe Horn? He's the guy who came out of his house and gunned some guys down. They weren't even threatening him. He was already on the phone with 911, the police were coming, but old Joe decided to take action himself. Joe was actually cheered by many in this forum; he was regarded as a hero.

 

[Rayderr]

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

And?

Well, it seems that you believe that the guy fired the "warning shot" after shooting the kid to cover his tracks. Yet, you have no evidence of that. Hence you are convicting the homeowner. Now if your statement wasn't dripping in sarcasm, then I take it all back.

 

[Rayderr]

But I'm not the one in here trying to come up with some wild theory about how the homeowner killed him in coldblood and then tried to cover it up. If the police find evidence of that they'll arrest him. I doubt some people sitting behind a computer hundreds if not thousands of miles away have been able to crack the case that the police on location have not simply by reading a washington post article.

What do you mean by "cold blood?" It isn't a wild theory that this guy shot first and asked questions later. That's exactly what a lot of folks in this thread seem to think is the appropriate response if there's an intruder in your house. It seems like a popular view among people that have guns for home protection.

But the mere fact that the kid was in his home gave him legal grounds to shoot. A warning shot is not needed.

Virginia law is largely silent on when a homeowner can shoot an intruder. But years of legal precedent give wide latitude to people who fear for their safety when someone breaks into their homes.

When did we start talking about whether this guy acted legally?

When people started making the homeowner as someone who is trying to cover up a murder.

 

[Apple Jack]

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

And?

Well, it seems that you believe that the guy fired the "warning shot" after shooting the kid to cover his tracks. Yet, you have no evidence of that. Hence you are convicting the homeowner. Now if your statement wasn't dripping in sarcasm, then I take it all back.

Convicting him of what? He killed somebody who broke into his home. There is no disputing that. The warning shot thing is irrelevant. He is not going to be charged with anything. I'm just saying that one explanation far more reasonable than the other.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

When did we start talking about whether this guy acted legally?

When people started making the homeowner someone is trying to cover up a murder.

Nobody said anything about murder. Somebody else just took the "warning shot" at face value as true. All I did was express skepticism about it. The homeowner is the only one that knows what happened, and saying that he fired a warning shot makes him look better, no matter what happened. I don't think it's fair just to assume that what the homeowner said was true.

 

[Apple Jack]

But I'm not the one in here trying to come up with some wild theory about how the homeowner killed him in coldblood and then tried to cover it up. If the police find evidence of that they'll arrest him. I doubt some people sitting behind a computer hundreds if not thousands of miles away have been able to crack the case that the police on location have not simply by reading a washington post article.

What do you mean by "cold blood?" It isn't a wild theory that this guy shot first and asked questions later. That's exactly what a lot of folks in this thread seem to think is the appropriate response if there's an intruder in your house. It seems like a popular view among people that have guns for home protection.

But the mere fact that the kid was in his home gave him legal grounds to shoot. A warning shot is not needed.

Virginia law is largely silent on when a homeowner can shoot an intruder. But years of legal precedent give wide latitude to people who fear for their safety when someone breaks into their homes.

When did we start talking about whether this guy acted legally?

When people started making the homeowner as someone who is trying to cover up a murder.

I suggest grabbing a breakfast sandwich and a mocha and maybe try rebooting when you get back.

 

[Rayderr]

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

And?

Well, it seems that you believe that the guy fired the "warning shot" after shooting the kid to cover his tracks. Yet, you have no evidence of that. Hence you are convicting the homeowner. Now if your statement wasn't dripping in sarcasm, then I take it all back.

Convicting him of what? He killed somebody who broke into his home. There is no disputing that. The warning shot thing is irrelevant. He is not going to be charged with anything. I'm just saying that one explanation far more reasonable than the other.

The warning shot is not irrelevant. If anything it could actually validate the guys claim. Supposedly the teen thought he was in his own home. What if he did what many would do in a situation where someone else is in your home and fires a gun at you and misses? You charge him and hope to disarm him. That by far seems even more likely than your scenario.

 

[Apple Jack]

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

And?

Well, it seems that you believe that the guy fired the "warning shot" after shooting the kid to cover his tracks. Yet, you have no evidence of that. Hence you are convicting the homeowner. Now if your statement wasn't dripping in sarcasm, then I take it all back.

Convicting him of what? He killed somebody who broke into his home. There is no disputing that. The warning shot thing is irrelevant. He is not going to be charged with anything. I'm just saying that one explanation far more reasonable than the other.

The warning shot is not irrelevant. If anything it could actually validate the guys claim. Supposedly the teen thought he was in his own home. What if he did what many would do in a situation where someone else is in your home and fires a gun at you and misses? You charge him and hope to disarm him. That by far seems even more likely than your scenario.

Sure. If you sniff glue on a regular basis.

 

[Rayderr]

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

And?

Well, it seems that you believe that the guy fired the "warning shot" after shooting the kid to cover his tracks. Yet, you have no evidence of that. Hence you are convicting the homeowner. Now if your statement wasn't dripping in sarcasm, then I take it all back.

Convicting him of what? He killed somebody who broke into his home. There is no disputing that. The warning shot thing is irrelevant. He is not going to be charged with anything. I'm just saying that one explanation far more reasonable than the other.

The warning shot is not irrelevant. If anything it could actually validate the guys claim. Supposedly the teen thought he was in his own home. What if he did what many would do in a situation where someone else is in your home and fires a gun at you and misses? You charge him and hope to disarm him. That by far seems even more likely than your scenario.

Sure. If you sniff glue on a regular basis.

or maybe if you were drunk?

 

[Rayderr]

When did we start talking about whether this guy acted legally?

When people started making the homeowner someone is trying to cover up a murder.

Nobody said anything about murder. Somebody else just took the "warning shot" at face value as true. All I did was express skepticism about it. The homeowner is the only one that knows what happened, and saying that he fired a warning shot makes him look better, no matter what happened. I don't think it's fair just to assume that what the homeowner said was true.

No, but it's not fair to doubt him either. How about we let the police decide if the guy is telling the truth (and then possibly a jury)?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

When did we start talking about whether this guy acted legally?

When people started making the homeowner someone is trying to cover up a murder.

Nobody said anything about murder. Somebody else just took the "warning shot" at face value as true. All I did was express skepticism about it. The homeowner is the only one that knows what happened, and saying that he fired a warning shot makes him look better, no matter what happened. I don't think it's fair just to assume that what the homeowner said was true.

No, but it's not fair to doubt him either. How about we let the police decide if the guy is telling the truth (and then possibly a jury)?

I'm not interfering with the investigation, I'm just posting my thoughts on a message board. I don't see what your problem is with that.

 

[Apple Jack]

When did we start talking about whether this guy acted legally?

When people started making the homeowner someone is trying to cover up a murder.

Nobody said anything about murder. Somebody else just took the "warning shot" at face value as true. All I did was express skepticism about it. The homeowner is the only one that knows what happened, and saying that he fired a warning shot makes him look better, no matter what happened. I don't think it's fair just to assume that what the homeowner said was true.

No, but it's not fair to doubt him either. How about we let the police decide if the guy is telling the truth (and then possibly a jury)?

He is not going to be charged with anything. Maybe he can be cited if he gives a false statement and then confesses to giving a false statement. Only he is ever going to know what order the shots were fired. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. He won't be charged either way.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

the homeowner was supposed to know that the teen wasn't a robber but a kid from down the street who snuck out, got drunk and was trying to sneak back into his house which looked identical.

It's a good thing to try to figure that out before you kill somebody.

"Hey you, breaking into my house! Let me see your ID!"

This story would have turned out a lot better if the homeowner had tried something like this.

Now apply that logic to the other 99.99% home invasions / B&E that were not accidental.How does the home owner not know that there are 3 accomplices downstairs doing evil things to his children?

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 miles outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs. Had the homeowner stopped to ask him for his ID and the 6 foot tall man ignores him and continues walking up the stairs (if he is ignoring someone firing a ####### gun and yelling at him to leave do you really think he will act differently?!?)

What do you do after he ignores your question and continues to approach you, forcibly give him a field sobriety test to ensure he means him and his family no harm?

I know what fatguyinalittlecoat would do if this was a home invasion and that kid would still be alive, not so sure the outcome would be as favorable in the other 99.99% of situations.

I wonder what Joe Biden thinks the homeowner should have done "after firing his shotgun up in the air".

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

 

[Henry Ford]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

D.C. is a scary place.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

So you don't know he was 6 foot tall?You don't know that the homeowner has no means to escape from the 2nd floor of his home?

I'm pretty sure we also don't know if the volunteer fireman that shot him had any clue that the 6 foot tall man approaching him was a varsity all star, nor a teenager, nor did he know he was his neighbor, nor did he know he accidentally broke into his house. He only knows that his burglar alarm went off and the 6 foot tall man approaching him is ignoring his commands, oh wait you said we don't know that so we have to assume the homeowner is lying, I get it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

D.C. is a scary place.

The stuff about him being a varsity all-star and 6-feet tall also aren't in the article. The article said the kid just made varsity this year so those are probably wrong too.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

So you don't know he was 6 foot tall?You don't know that the homeowner has no means to escape from the 2nd floor of his home?

I'm pretty sure we also don't know if the volunteer fireman that shot him had any clue that the 6 foot tall man approaching him was a varsity all star, nor did he know he was his neighbor, nor did he know he accidentally broke into his house. He only knows that his burglar alarm went off and the 6 foot tall man approaching him is ignoring his commands, oh wait you said we don't know that so we have to assume the homeowner is lying, I get it.

The part I crossed out was the part I didn't think we knew. Congrats on your link showing that the kid actually was 6 feet tall. It seems like the people taking the homeowner's word for everything are the ones making all the assumptions, not me.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I guess it is time to ban guns to avoid unwanted deaths from these 0.01% accidental home invasions.

 

[Apple Jack]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

So you don't know he was 6 foot tall?You don't know that the homeowner has no means to escape from the 2nd floor of his home?

I'm pretty sure we also don't know if the volunteer fireman that shot him had any clue that the 6 foot tall man approaching him was a varsity all star, nor did he know he was his neighbor, nor did he know he accidentally broke into his house. He only knows that his burglar alarm went off and the 6 foot tall man approaching him is ignoring his commands, oh wait you said we don't know that so we have to assume the homeowner is lying, I get it.

The part I crossed out was the part I didn't think we knew. Congrats on your link showing that the kid actually was 6 feet tall. It seems like the people taking the homeowner's word for everything are the ones making all the assumptions, not me.

The chubbys come out when they get a whiff of home invasion gun killin' defendin'.

 

[Rayderr]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

So you don't know he was 6 foot tall?You don't know that the homeowner has no means to escape from the 2nd floor of his home?

I'm pretty sure we also don't know if the volunteer fireman that shot him had any clue that the 6 foot tall man approaching him was a varsity all star, nor did he know he was his neighbor, nor did he know he accidentally broke into his house. He only knows that his burglar alarm went off and the 6 foot tall man approaching him is ignoring his commands, oh wait you said we don't know that so we have to assume the homeowner is lying, I get it.

The part I crossed out was the part I didn't think we knew. Congrats on your link showing that the kid actually was 6 feet tall. It seems like the people taking the homeowner's word for everything are the ones making all the assumptions, not me.

It's what we have to go on until more information comes out.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

So you don't know he was 6 foot tall?You don't know that the homeowner has no means to escape from the 2nd floor of his home?

I'm pretty sure we also don't know if the volunteer fireman that shot him had any clue that the 6 foot tall man approaching him was a varsity all star, nor did he know he was his neighbor, nor did he know he accidentally broke into his house. He only knows that his burglar alarm went off and the 6 foot tall man approaching him is ignoring his commands, oh wait you said we don't know that so we have to assume the homeowner is lying, I get it.

The part I crossed out was the part I didn't think we knew. Congrats on your link showing that the kid actually was 6 feet tall. It seems like the people taking the homeowner's word for everything are the ones making all the assumptions, not me.

The chubbys come out when they get a whiff of home invasion gun killin' defendin'.

As opposed to the other way around which is evident from the last two pages of posts.

 

[Apple Jack]

What do we know at this point? The boy shot was a varsity all-star, 6 foot tall and drunk, broke into a house located 30 minutes outside of D.C., the homeowner only sees a 6 foot tall man approaching him in his home, up his stairwell where he has no means of escape. He tells him to leave and fires a warning shot, the 6 foot tall man ignores the warning shot and continues to approach him, potentially endangering himself, his wife and anyone else that are trapped upstairs.

We don't know most of the stuff you said. I'm not sure the significance of the "30 minutes outside DC" part.

So you don't know he was 6 foot tall?You don't know that the homeowner has no means to escape from the 2nd floor of his home?

I'm pretty sure we also don't know if the volunteer fireman that shot him had any clue that the 6 foot tall man approaching him was a varsity all star, nor did he know he was his neighbor, nor did he know he accidentally broke into his house. He only knows that his burglar alarm went off and the 6 foot tall man approaching him is ignoring his commands, oh wait you said we don't know that so we have to assume the homeowner is lying, I get it.

The part I crossed out was the part I didn't think we knew. Congrats on your link showing that the kid actually was 6 feet tall. It seems like the people taking the homeowner's word for everything are the ones making all the assumptions, not me.

The chubbys come out when they get a whiff of home invasion gun killin' defendin'.

As opposed to the other way around which is evident from the last two pages of posts.

You guys are seeing something that is not there. If I was the homeowner, would I have killed the kid? No. But I'm not saying he wasn't within his rights to do it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You're a ####### mess man. Where did I say anything about "convicting" the homeowner? I understand that he thought it was an intruder and that anybody else would have thought the same thing.

Right because a piss drunk unarmed kid with no history whatsoever of violence disregarding a gunshot and continuing at his neighbor in their house makes much more sense than the neighbor shooting the kid first, freaking out, and then making it look like he fired a warning shot.

And?

Well, it seems that you believe that the guy fired the "warning shot" after shooting the kid to cover his tracks. Yet, you have no evidence of that. Hence you are convicting the homeowner. Now if your statement wasn't dripping in sarcasm, then I take it all back.

Convicting him of what? He killed somebody who broke into his home. There is no disputing that. The warning shot thing is irrelevant. He is not going to be charged with anything. I'm just saying that one explanation far more reasonable than the other.

The warning shot is not irrelevant. If anything it could actually validate the guys claim. Supposedly the teen thought he was in his own home. What if he did what many would do in a situation where someone else is in your home and fires a gun at you and misses? You charge him and hope to disarm him. That by far seems even more likely than your scenario.

Sure. If you sniff glue on a regular basis.

Or if you drank enough liquid courage when you were 16 to break into someone else's home thinking it was yours,

 

[Apple Jack]

at this "liquid courage" thing. You guys see that on an After School Special? Or is it in the new talking points email?

I was 30 when I accidentally walked into the wrong house.

 

[mad sweeney]

if you sneak around at night while intoxicated and don't surrender when somebody fires a warning shot at you point blank, don't be surprised if you get shot.

Why should we believe the homeowner about the warning shot?

And who's saying anything about being surprised?

 

[jonessed]

I have a hard time believing that this kid and his friends all helped break into a house they thought was actually his.

Either way, if you break into an occupied home you run the risk of getting shot. I don't see how this helps gun control advocates.

 

[mad sweeney]

I have a hard time believing that this kid and his friends all helped break into a house they thought was actually his.Either way, if you break into an occupied home you run the risk of getting shot. I don't see how this helps gun control advocates.

It doesn't help either side of the debate.

 

[Rayderr]

at this "liquid courage" thing. You guys see that on an After School Special? Or is it in the new talking points email? I was 30 when I accidentally walked into the wrong house.

Alcohol lowers people inhibitions. I don't think people doubt that. And most teenage boys do think they are invincible. Combine the 2, and it's very plausible (definitely moreso than the homeowner trying to cover things up by firing a warning shot afterwards) that the kid, thinking someone had broken into his home, tried to attack the man.

 

[jonessed]

at this "liquid courage" thing. You guys see that on an After School Special? Or is it in the new talking points email? I was 30 when I accidentally walked into the wrong house.

Alcohol lowers people inhibitions. I don't think people doubt that. And most teenage boys do think they are invincible. Combine the 2, and it's very plausible (definitely moreso than the homeowner trying to cover things up by firing a warning shot afterwards) that the kid, thinking someone had broken into his home, tried to attack the man.

Or they got drunk and thought it would be funny to actually break into someone's home.I'm surprised the owner didn't recognize the kid. He lived two doors down. Don't neighbors talk anymore?

 

[Rayderr]

at this "liquid courage" thing. You guys see that on an After School Special? Or is it in the new talking points email? I was 30 when I accidentally walked into the wrong house.

Alcohol lowers people inhibitions. I don't think people doubt that. And most teenage boys do think they are invincible. Combine the 2, and it's very plausible (definitely moreso than the homeowner trying to cover things up by firing a warning shot afterwards) that the kid, thinking someone had broken into his home, tried to attack the man.

Or they got drunk and thought it would be funny to actually break into someone's home.I'm surprised the owner didn't recognize the kid. He lived two doors down. Don't neighbors talk anymore?

I'm guessing lights were off.

 

[Novice2]

at this "liquid courage" thing. You guys see that on an After School Special? Or is it in the new talking points email? I was 30 when I accidentally walked into the wrong house.

Alcohol lowers people inhibitions. I don't think people doubt that. And most teenage boys do think they are invincible. Combine the 2, and it's very plausible (definitely moreso than the homeowner trying to cover things up by firing a warning shot afterwards) that the kid, thinking someone had broken into his home, tried to attack the man.

Or they got drunk and thought it would be funny to actually break into someone's home.I'm surprised the owner didn't recognize the kid. He lived two doors down. Don't neighbors talk anymore?

No they don't unless you live in Hicksville.

 

[timschochet]

Either way, if you break into an occupied home you run the risk of getting shot. I don't see how this helps gun control advocates.

It doesn't, but it is suggestive about the mindset of many gun-owners. The chances that at sometime in your life an armed stranger will invade your home with the intent to do you and your family harm are incredibly small. You have better odds of winning the lotto, or being struck by lightning. Yet a lot of these gun owners think that it's an every day occurrence, and it could happen to them any time. That's why it's not improbable to speculate about this dude being a little trigger happy.

 

[jonessed]

Either way, if you break into an occupied home you run the risk of getting shot. I don't see how this helps gun control advocates.

It doesn't, but it is suggestive about the mindset of many gun-owners. The chances that at sometime in your life an armed stranger will invade your home with the intent to do you and your family harm are incredibly small. You have better odds of winning the lotto, or being struck by lightning. Yet a lot of these gun owners think that it's an every day occurrence, and it could happen to them any time. That's why it's not improbable to speculate about this dude being a little trigger happy.

... but still larger than the odds a teenager will break into your home with the help of his friends and walk up your stairs by complete accident.This is a bad story to play the probabilities card on.

The idea that gun owners are looking to shoot people for fun is horse####. Shooting somebody that breaks into your home at 2:00 in the morning and advances up your staircase doesn't make you trigger happy.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Either way, if you break into an occupied home you run the risk of getting shot. I don't see how this helps gun control advocates.

It doesn't, but it is suggestive about the mindset of many gun-owners. The chances that at sometime in your life an armed stranger will invade your home with the intent to do you and your family harm are incredibly small. You have better odds of winning the lotto, or being struck by lightning. Yet a lot of these gun owners think that it's an every day occurrence, and it could happen to them any time. That's why it's not improbable to speculate about this dude being a little trigger happy.

... but still larger than the odds a teenager will break into your home with the help of his friends and walk up your stairs by complete accident.This is a bad story to play the probabilities card on.

The idea that gun owners are looking to shoot people for fun is horse####. Shooting somebody that breaks into your home at 2:00 in the morning and advances up your staircase against your commands to leave doesn't make you trigger happy.

Tim being ignorant as always.

As to his everyday occurrence comment, just because it is not in the MSM does not mean it doesn't happen every damn day.

My link

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Either way, if you break into an occupied home you run the risk of getting shot. I don't see how this helps gun control advocates.

It doesn't, but it is suggestive about the mindset of many gun-owners. The chances that at sometime in your life an armed stranger will invade your home with the intent to do you and your family harm are incredibly small. You have better odds of winning the lotto, or being struck by lightning. Yet a lot of these gun owners think that it's an every day occurrence, and it could happen to them any time. That's why it's not improbable to speculate about this dude being a little trigger happy.

... but still larger than the odds a teenager will break into your home with the help of his friends and walk up your stairs by complete accident.This is a bad story to play the probabilities card on.

The idea that gun owners are looking to shoot people for fun is horse####. Shooting somebody that breaks into your home at 2:00 in the morning and advances up your staircase against your commands to leave doesn't make you trigger happy.

Tim being ignorant as always.

As to his everyday occurrence comment, just because it is not in the MSM does not mean it doesn't happen every damn day.

My link

Tim finding something 'suggestive to a gun owners mindset' >>>> facts and logic.

 

[Blick]

Either way, if you break into an occupied home you run the risk of getting shot. I don't see how this helps gun control advocates.

It doesn't, but it is suggestive about the mindset of many gun-owners. The chances that at sometime in your life an armed stranger will invade your home with the intent to do you and your family harm are incredibly small. You have better odds of winning the lotto, or being struck by lightning. Yet a lot of these gun owners think that it's an every day occurrence, and it could happen to them any time. That's why it's not improbable to speculate about this dude being a little trigger happy.

... but still larger than the odds a teenager will break into your home with the help of his friends and walk up your stairs by complete accident.This is a bad story to play the probabilities card on.

The idea that gun owners are looking to shoot people for fun is horse####. Shooting somebody that breaks into your home at 2:00 in the morning and advances up your staircase doesn't make you trigger happy.

The anti-gun crowd have plenty of stories that defend their position. This isn't one of them.

 

[Apple Jack]

Either way, if you break into an occupied home you run the risk of getting shot. I don't see how this helps gun control advocates.

It doesn't, but it is suggestive about the mindset of many gun-owners. The chances that at sometime in your life an armed stranger will invade your home with the intent to do you and your family harm are incredibly small. You have better odds of winning the lotto, or being struck by lightning. Yet a lot of these gun owners think that it's an every day occurrence, and it could happen to them any time. That's why it's not improbable to speculate about this dude being a little trigger happy.

... but still larger than the odds a teenager will break into your home with the help of his friends and walk up your stairs by complete accident.This is a bad story to play the probabilities card on.

The idea that gun owners are looking to shoot people for fun is horse####. Shooting somebody that breaks into your home at 2:00 in the morning and advances up your staircase doesn't make you trigger happy.

The anti-gun crowd have plenty of stories that defend their position. This isn't one of them.

I don't think they're necessarily looking to shoot people, I think they're looking to have their paranoia validated.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yeah, nobody's saying that this single incident alters the debate in any meaningful way. It's just one data point that sometimes owning a gun leads to tragedy that might otherwise have been avoided.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Yeah, nobody's saying that this single incident alters the debate in any meaningful way. It's just one data point that sometimes owning a gun leads to tragedy that might otherwise have been avoided.

And there are just as many points where owning a gun has avoided a tragedy. And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

And someone getting killed while breaking into another persons home at 2am is not a tragedy.

In what world is this not a tragedy? A 16 year old kid was shot and killed.

The one where you don't break into other peoples homes at 2 am regardless of how old you are.