Homeowner shoots, kills 14 yr old home invader.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpps/news/Homeowner-Kills-Burglar-in-Dallas-040912_19064105

DALLAS - A homeowner shot and killed a burglary suspect Monday morning in the southeast Dallas neighborhood of Pleasant Grove and two more suspects were in custody.

The shooting happened at about 11 a.m. in the 7300 block of Vallejo Drive, near Jim Miller and Bruton roads.

According to police, three youngsters rang the doorbell and then ran to the back of the home, prompting the homeowner to call 911.

The trio then allegedly kicked in the back door and entered the home, where the unidentified resident opened fire, killing 14-year-old Luis Avila

There is a video at the link with more information.

Another site with a video: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Teens-Death-Prompting-Discussions-Between-Kids-Parents-146840575.html

SNIP
Inside, the homeowner, Lee Cobbler, reportedly warned the teens to leave the home and that he was armed.
SNIP

I heard about this at work. Two co-workers (both black, one male, one female) began talking about it. Both supported the homeowner saying that if anybody kicked their door in they would shoot. They wouldn't have time to ask to see his ID and check his age.

[blm]

1. At that point with 3 of them invading my home I'd shoot, too, and I'm a bleedingheartliberal.

.

[teddy51]

2. I'm with you, with three of them there going to get shot. n/t

[hlthe2b]

3. I probably would too if armed, but I surely would not be celebrating...

Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I can appreciate those protecting themself and family when necessary. What I can not understand or respect, is the bravado and braggadocio that some bring to the discussion of such tragic episodes. (not to imply you, blm-- just a rhetorical comment)

[blm]

4. no celebration here, either...it would be disbelief and sorrow mixed with

the certainty that I needed to protect myself, my daughter, my home.

[gejohnston]

5. I agree

What I can not understand or respect, is the bravado and braggadocio that some bring to the discussion of such tragic episodes

barf your guts out while calling the cops-yes
celebrate-no

[sarisataka]

10. They would hear one word...

"Leave"

Heartbeats later I would fire. Then celebrate-- no. Killing is never cause for celebration.

I would offer condolences to the family, the shooter and his classmates. There are no winners.

[ellisonz]

11. Do you understand how fast a heartbeat is?

Faster than the brains ability to comprehend a word such as leave.

[sarisataka]

40. In a life and death situation

It is both a fraction of a second and several minutes.

That is why I advocate mental preparation even over marksmanship. Your reasoning brain needs to keep control over your lizard brain which will screaming "DO SOMETHING"
As your body goes into overdrive, you need to force your brain into overdrive and make each of those heartbeats last as many minutes as you can... If you act too late, you may be dead, too soon you may be a murderer.
You owe it to yourself, your family and even that person in front of you, whether a young kid doing something dumb or a hardened felon, to make the choice to apply a few pounds of pressure to that trigger as reasoned of a decision as you can. Once you have committed to that pull, lives will change forever.
Also, once you act, whether to flee or fight, that lizard brain will triple its efforts to take charge. Only now it will scream "DO IT AGAIN"
You will either run faster than you ever have before you learn why so many shots get fired in an encounter.

Mentally preparing will not guarantee you will win the reason/instinct battle with yourself; but if you fail to prepare, your lizard brain will take charge and you will learn later what you did.

[ellisonz]

42. "It is both a fraction of a second and several minutes."

I'm glad to hear of your fear of lizard brain.

[sarisataka]

44. I take it

you have not studied any of the psychology related to killing... or the deeper concepts beyond what we normally toss off as fight or flight... some include posture and submit to the choices

The clinical term is tachypsychia or tachy psyche
http://www.reference.com/browse/Tachy+Psyche

[ellisonz]

45. And you would be wrong...

...but honestly, I'm more of a philosopher than a psychologist and I'm not a big believer in theories of snap judgment. I think people make deliberate decisions. I don't think it could be any other way. To suppose that at some point we lose our own agency is contradictory to the idea that we are generally in control of our actions. But you believe whatever you would like about ontology...

[sarisataka]

49. I'm not

a big believer in philosophy... mostly because a close friend has a degree in the subject and he drives me nuts

Have you heard of people who are dropped into a surprise stressful situation and 'freeze'? They have gone into submit mode i.e. they give up.
Despite all of our intelligence we are closer to animals than we often like to admit. When our reasoning gets overwhelmed we will fall back on instinct, or 'lizard brain'. Our medulla is programmed to keep us alive but it just does, it does not think. It will often not mate the wisest choice.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. May I suggest that you read this month's Scientific American?

There is a lengthy article on why the lizard brain takes over when under stress and how it does it.

[ellisonz]

91. How do we know it wasn't the "lizard brain" in the first place?

[GreenStormCloud]

94. Read the article. Educate yourself about the real world.

Philosophy is nice to talk about while sitting in overstuffed chairs.

[ellisonz]

95. Oh I will...

...but I think many people are looking for excuses for behavior. Also four words: evolution is a fact.

I presume this is the article you are referencing: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-of-our-kind

[GreenStormCloud]

96. That is the issue but not the article.

Of course evolution is a fact. Have I given any indication of denying it?

Here is the article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-is-your-brain-in-meltdown

Everyday Stress Can Shut Down the Brain's Chief Command Center

Neural circuits responsible for conscious self-control are highly vulnerable to even mild stress. When they shut down, primal impulses go unchecked and mental paralysis sets in.

Freezing under stress, a common experience for all of us at some point in our life, has its roots in a loss of control over “executive functions” that allow us to control our emotions.

Prefrontal cortical areas, which serve as the brain’s executive command centers, normally hold our emotions in check by sending signals to tone down activity in primitive brain systems.

Under even everyday stresses, the prefrontal cortex can shut down, allowing the amyg­dala, a locus for regulating emotional activity, to take over, inducing mental paralysis and panic.

Researchers are probing further the physiology of acute stress and are considering behavioral and pharmaceutical interventions to help us retain composure when the going gets tough.

[ellisonz]

98. I would need a subscription to read the full article...

But yeah, this argument is nothing new

Also, if I am stressed all the time, am I "primal" all of the time? It also doesn't support the idea that some people are better under stressful considerations than others, otherwise we would all have near identical reactions. I think whatever research they have done is certainly interesting, but it doesn't support their extrapolation, and it doesn't account for the complexity of the mind.

[GreenStormCloud]

99. The article goes into all of that.

Three people kicking in the door would qualify as extreme stress and cause the release of the chemicals that shut down the frontal cortex.

You appear to be ready to dismiss it without reading it.

It does go against your philosophy and part of your world-view so it can't be true, even if it is in Scientific American. /sarcasm

[GreenStormCloud]

103. There is a book on the precise topic.

By precise I mean about what happens to the body under the stress of a gunfight. The book is Stressfire. You won't like it because it is about what actually, physically, happens to the human body and how it really reacts in that type of situation. The body doesn't act the way armchair philosophers like to think that it does.

[ellisonz]

107. I'm sure there is...

...there are also many books asserting the ability of the human mind to make rational choices in all types of situations, which is quite apart from this supposed primal nature.

[DocMac]

118. Don't use the word "precise" unless you wrote that book!

Reading a book does not make you a Doctor. Or a Nurse for that matter.

It seems that you are trying to make a case here. Does this benefit you in some way?

Maybe you just can't imagine a Texas homeowner being over run by three teenagers?

Take a week off and you'll be just fine.

[sarisataka]

104. Some of the answers

Also, if I am stressed all the time, am I "primal" all of the time?

No but long term stress does have effects on our cognitive abilities

It also doesn't support the idea that some people are better under stressful considerations than others, otherwise we would all have near identical reactions.

It does in that we are all individuals. Our reactions are based on instinct, training, life experience and our individuality. That is why you cannot pre-predict how anyone will react. The biggest toughest man may collapse into a blubbering mess while the petite librarian turns into a tiger.
I happen to be one of those who function better under stress. My day to day I am a disorganized mess. Apparently there are signs that adhd may be tied to being able to handle stress well.

I think whatever research they have done is certainly interesting, but it doesn't support their extrapolation, and it doesn't account for the complexity of the mind.

It is very interesting. Due to the complexity of the mind all that can be determined yet is general trends. If it is eventually refined to where it can be applied to individuals we may have found a tool to look for warning signs of those pre-dispossessed to become criminals

[ellisonz]

111. "a tool to look for warning signs of those pre-dispossessed to become criminals"

Also, your first and second answers contradict - either you are willing to use a gun or you are not. There is no auto-reaction - there is a choice, and it can be controlled by the human mind. This whole primalist argument is nothing but fruitless sensationalism designed to perpetuate cultural stereotypes concerning reaction. This is why so many here are confused by the very idea of non-violence as being an ethos that can be ascribed to and practiced with great seriousness.

Enjoy your fantasy of a right-wing future with "perfect" people and no criminals

[sarisataka]

113. You missed the point

It was in your own argument:

otherwise we would all have near identical reactions

We do not. It is that individuality that keeps the field from being a tidy clean cut if 'A' then 'B'.

And I am not confused by non-violence at all If studies are correct, 60-80% of all people are non-violent. On their own, the will not kill even if their life depends on it. Flight and submission are by far the most common reactions to danger.
We are 'programmed' to not kill each other.
Most of the remainder have the ability to choose to kill, at great psychological cost. Given the right stimulus- immediate personal danger, or by direction e.g. war, they will kill. PTSD in those is one backlash from overcoming their unwillingness to kill.
A small (~2%) do not have any of these inhibitors. They are the sociopaths; those who kill without remorse or regret.

Some of this can be overcome with training. The military and police do it to all recruits as the possibility of killing is part of their profession. If it becomes necessary to kill, society prefers they do so. The psychological backlash is still often there.

Enjoy your fantasy of a right-wing future with "perfect" people and no criminals

Never said it would be perfect or that we would have no criminals...
And it is more of a liberal ideal. Locate those who may be prone to a criminal lifestyle and provide them the support and education to steer them to, likely, a more normal lifestyle. The reverse of military training.

[ellisonz]

140. Hey you said it...

You sure seem to love that survival of the fittest model.

Locate those who may be prone to a criminal lifestyle and provide them the support and education to steer them to, likely, a more normal lifestyle. The reverse of military training.

You're completely ignoring pure "economic" motivation in the equation...what is a "criminal lifestyle" in this context? Is a Wall Street inside trader just as much of a criminal as a gang member?

[gejohnston]

142. they are just as much of a criminal

but insider trading mostly steals from corporations. A better example would be a vulture capitalist, which is more like the mob than MS-13.

[sarisataka]

151. So why do we invest so much

In social programs? Are you saying they have no effect? If so, why do we waste all of that money; we could throw the republicans a bone and build another hundred prisons.


OTH, if we can influence youths away from crime would not a similar program that identifies those 'likely' to be more violent get early anger management skills before they put their SO in the hospital?

[ellisonz]

152. The problem is your model of criminality...

It is based on the idea that this is a behavior hardwired into genetics rather than a learned behavior that I agree is dependent on social conditions, I'm glad to see you are now apparently shifting positions from the idea that criminals could someday be preemptively rooted out to a more reality based ethical approach. People who are trained to be non-violent from the start are less likely to be violent down the road. You can't train people to be violent and then expect non-violence.

[sarisataka]

155. Not really changing

Just looking for another tool. If it can be determined a person is prone to violence,keep them the hell away from any training that involves violence. Psychotic people make poor soldiers. That is where you will find war criminals

[ellisonz]

158. How do you objectively determine someone is psychotic without prior evidence of instability? n/t

[sarisataka]

160. not possible

At this time.
Just as you can give a soldier all the best training and conditioning but at the moment of truth he may not act. We can only go by what is likely but cannot be sure until after the fact

[Callisto32]

121. So you ignore the empirical evidence because it doesn't comport shit people made up?

Have you ever been in a fight for your life?

You don't lose volition, but you start making calculations in a whole new way, much more quickly, and based on far less perfect data. Decisions get worse under these conditions, even people who have trained extensively for such a situation do not react the way they think they will.

[ellisonz]

139. I don't think you understand what empircal evidence is conceptually.

It's not just data - it is analysis. I would bet you could get the same reaction to making a choice from a dinner menu from those who "lose control" in such situations. The argument that somehow there is a "primal nature" inside of us that takes over in such situations is facetious, rather there are good and bad decision makers, and that has nothing to with such a supposition.

[sarisataka]

153. So if I follow you correctly...

There is no such thing as panic? People who were in traffic accidents are just trying to cover their backs? Or the drowning person who tries to push their rescuer under water is really trying to kill?

[ellisonz]

156. Depends on the specific context...

...in the first one there is a clear choice and our criminal statutes recognize that a choice is being made. The second is more ambiguous and is not akin to the first example, in this situation we might say the person is panicking because the sensation and fear of drowning is truly imminent and sudden. The problem with applying this conceptualization of "panic" to the situation in the OP is that the OP situation like the first involves a clear choice where it could have been otherwise and all would still be alive.

[sarisataka]

162. Eureka!

the person is panicking because the sensation and fear of drowning is truly imminent and sudden.

This is what may happen. A person is faced with a sudden and immanent threat... Armed felon, tiger, three people who just kicked in your back door. A person may not be able to make a rational choice. They are in the ohmygodthiscantbehappeningtome mode but the body may still be acting on autopilot.

It does not absolve you. You are still responsible for your actions but it is a consideration. It is also why we must look at the totality of the situation. Did the homeowners shoot 8 times because he was in panic mode- self defense or did he shoot twice than walk up and put several 'finishing' rounds into a helpless opponent- murder.
The evidence should be able to show if the claim by the shooter is justified or was deliberate action taken; it can be the difference between murder, manslaughter and self-defense

[Air Marshal8]

165. Indeed, and when someone makes the deliberate decision to break into someone's domicile,

they (should) know there will be consequences. Why do you defend the criminals in these kinds of cases? I may be a new poster but I've been reading for a very long time and I see it over and over ad nauseum.

[sylvi]

76. Breaking into an occupied dwelling

Breaking into an occupied dwelling, when they know someone is there, up and alert, you don't think the word "Leave!" uttered by the occupant would be comprehended immediately?

What would they do, stand around wondering what he meant by, "Leave!"?


"'Leave!' What do you think he meant by that?"
"I don't know. Do you think he doesn't want us here?"
"I can't imagine why. Did we offend him?"
"Perhaps he wasn't serious."
"He sounded serious to me."
"Inconceivable!"
"It could be a joke."
"I don't know. He looks rather perturbed."
"Maybe he said, 'Leaves!'. The yard did look rather unkempt."
"Let's ask for clarification."
"Good Sir, could we by chance have a cup of tea and discuss this 'Leave!' business? We're not quite clear on it."

[ellisonz]

78. If you shoot them before they can respond or leave...

...there was really no point in saying "leave" in the first place for your straw man.

[sylvi]

136. You're the one who brought up how long it takes to comprehend a word

It shouldn't take a criminal but a second to hear it, turn on his heel and haul ass, especially knowing there's someone there to say it. It shouldn't be a surprise. Unless you had no intention of leaving to begin with.

No strawman to it.

[ellisonz]

138. I'm sorry, but I'd like to see you test your own theory on yourself in this matter. n/t

[Air Marshal8]

166. That could be smack out of a Monty Python movie.

The apologists for thugs don't get it, though.

[rl6214]

168. You do understand he said "heartbeats"?

Heartbeats may be five seconds later, that would give anyone enough time to run away before being shot.

[DocMac]

64. Are you saying that the 14 yr. old fired a shot? nt

[sarisataka]

66. No

shooter=homeowner

his (dead boy's) classmates

[DocMac]

67. His classmates fired shots? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

81. The poster switched subjects in the middle of the post.

In his last sentence he switches to the first person and would offer his condolences to everyone including the homeowner who had to shoot. In the video it states that the homeowner is very distraught at having killed a young teen.

[DocMac]

84. Yes, it's sad.

Maybe i'm just on edge about people so quick to pull that trigger.

And when they are this young, it makes it harder to grasp.

Kids make poor decisions. I'm just one that thinks they can change.

[krispos42]

135. Probably staring with sick fascination at the body on the floor.

Once the other two had ran.

In that gap between the survivors running off and the cops showing up, I'd probably be hugging my son while being amazed at the amount of blood in the human body.

If I had my wits, I'd probably call the neighbor or a relative to come over ASAP, to take care of the kid in case the cops haul me in.

[Lizzie Poppet]

145. Likewise.

From what I've read about this scenario, I'd shoot, too. I'd be horrified to kill any human being (and especially a stupid kid like that, who may well have been able to reverse course and straighten up). But three people kicking my door down? Sorry, but that can be reasonably perceived as a deadly threat, and I'll respond accordingly

[southernyankeebelle]

6. I would probably defend my homefront by giving plenty of warning. But I'd be sure damn mad if I

had to shoot someone. I sure wouldn't be bragging I'd be crying and mad as hell.

[DocMac]

7. Who commits crimes like this at 11am?

Teenagers I guess. I used to hunt deer in SW PA when I was young. If you just wounded it, you can expect a lot more work finding it. Are people not able to wound these criminals?

I hate to use that analogy, but why not a warning shot and a couple leg shots?

I made some mistakes as a young man and i've managed to rise above that.

[Warpy]

8. Prime time for burglary here is about 10:30 AM

until 3:30 PM. Most of them are punky kids. One pro is working the area, though, an old junky type I barely got a glance at.

[DocMac]

18. Really?

So punks and old junky types are in your neighborhood? How long?

Maybe you are forced to live in that area and can't move. I'm with you so far.

Try a warning shot, ok. and lower the sights to get an arm or leg.

[PavePusher]

54. Please study up on shooting in self-defense.

It doesn't work at all like in movies or print-fiction.

[DocMac]

62. Yes, because a shot to the chest is a minor wound.

Please just stop!

[PavePusher]

65. Please read all my comments to you, look up the recommended reference...

then get back to me.

Your current set of claims will land you, or someone else, in jail for a very long time.

You are not at all current on training, law, or common sense.

Edit: I made no such claim.

[DocMac]

97. And you are what? A police officer? A lawyer?

I'll consider all that when your nephew sneaks into my garage.

It will be my judgement and not yours at that time. What do you suggest?

[PavePusher]

110. I suggest that you educate yourself on current laws and training.

But now I'm repeating myself.

[DocMac]

114. Do you think that this person

who killed this kid had adequate training? If so, where in Texas is that course offered?

You still don't know if it was a 9mm or a shotgun. But it's really important that you don't repeat yourself.

No one wants you to lose your cred.

[PavePusher]

126. Both of those will quite handily shoot through a common house door....

and well beyond, with plenty of power to severely injure or kill someone on the other side, across the street, or in the next house.

If you don't believe me, take a few surplus doors to a suitable range and try it some time.

"adequete training" does not require a formal class, but many such do exist. The Texas CCW class should cover the basics, a little math and reading will explain the physics to anyone of triple-digit IQ. More advanced training is easily available, several suggestions in the right direction have been provided to you already.

[rl6214]

171. You don't shoot to "wound" the intruder, you shoot to stop them

If you shoot to wound and you tell the cops that, then you will not have a defense that you though you were in immenent danger. If you wound a suspect there is no way of knowing that the person will not keep coming at you. Also in self defense you are taught to shoot at the largest mass area, when the adreneline is flowing you are not going to hit an arm or a leg.

[Warpy]

88. Not only that, but they love to steal guns

Where do people think they get them?

[Warpy]

87. Actually, I chased the last little bastards who tried it here.

A cop asked me what I was going to do if I caught one. "Dismantle him" was my answer, complete with the info that I was a retired RN.

The cop said he was lucky his buddy picked him up in the car.

I live in this area for the convenience and because my neighbors are great. There are no "good" neighborhoods in this city, just more expensive ones.

I don't own a firearm, my eyesight is too poor. However, kneecapping them with a pipe wrench is not out of the question.

[DocMac]

90. With poor eyesight,

I would suggest good locks and alarms.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Nothing makes me the arbiter...

...of anything but...

I wouldn't be firing a shot if a life wasn't in danger. If a life is in danger, the only appropriate shots are center of mass shots. Ammo is cheap, life is expensive.

[DocMac]

13. Was the home owner fired on?

I'm talking about the measure of one's response. Young people do mistakes and we should believe that an experience like a leg wound wound bring them around.

Otherwise we are in for some serious shit. Like people ready to kill instantly.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. There are very few people...

...with the ability to maintain the necessary degree of calm in that situation combined with the marksmanship and overall skill-at-arms needed to hit a target as small as an appendage and not miss. (BTW missing means either hitting nothing or possibly hitting the torso.) Generally, shooting at someone and not completely disabling them will only result in a longer gunfight. (rule #23 - The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.)

As I said previously, unless a life is in danger, it's not worth shooting at all. If a life is in danger, this is a seriously vast problem.

As the sign says, "Never assault a vast problem with half-vast measures."

[spin]

30. A leg wound can be more lethal than a shot to center body mass...

Femoral artery

The femoral artery is a general term comprising a few large arteries in the thigh. They begin at the inguinal ligament (femoral head) and end just above the knee at adductor canal or Hunter's canal traversing the extent of the femur bone.

The femoral artery is divided into three parts: The common femoral artery which divides into the deep femoral artery (a.k.a. Profunda), which provides blood to the thigh, and the superficial femoral artery, which provides blood to the arteries that circulate the knee and foot.


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

Q: Can you survive a gunshot wound to the femoral artery?

A: Answer The survivability of a bullet wound to the femoral artery is dependent on many factors. The most important factors are the severity and location of the bleeding and the availability of advanced medical care. The size of the victim, the possibility of infection, and the activity of the victim after being shot are all also extremely important. Serious bleeding from the femoral artery must be properly treated immediately. A few minutes can be all that is necessary for the wound to guarantee permanent disability such as brain damage or the need for amputation. A wound to the upper femoral artery caused by a direct shot from a heavy rifle slug is likely to kill within ten minutes....
http://www.medicalfaq.net/bullet_wound/ta-32652/p4

edited for typo

[PavePusher]

55. The phrase you are missing is "disparity of force".

Please look it up.

[slackmaster]

133. DocMac, the shooting as described would be a lawful use of Castle Doctrine even in California

FYI

[DocMac]

215. You should know that I don't care!

If I took a machette and cut a hand off, that child would live. Since when do we just kill people because they want your stuff?

And since when do you feel ok about that? I guess never having that situation upon you raises your risk. But, I know all the scenarios, including the worst, and i'm just a person that cannot simply blow someone away if they are misguided and climbing through a window.

I dated a woman who had a 13 yr. old daughter. She snuck out one night and had no way to get back in but sneaking into her mother's bedroom. This happened at 2am. I was laying there watching the window move up slowly and scared shitless. I could have assumed what most would and shot her and her friend to death. But I just started screaming to get out of my house until I realised who was sneaking in.

These are real situations...you can't take it back.

[slackmaster]

218. Neither you nor the homeowner had any knowledge that the kid just wanted his stuff

Your reply is ridiculous.

[Travis_0004]

12. Shooting somebody in the leg is just stupid.

If somebody breaks into my house, I'll point the gun at them, and that is the warning. If they retreat or comply, then I have no reason to shoot.

If they are a threat, and I need to shoot, then I'm going to shoot to stop the threat, and that means multiple shots to center mass.

If you are aiming at the legs, then the case could be made against you that they were not really a threat. Plus, if somebody breaks into my house, and I get into a gun fight, my objective is to win the fight above all else. And that means shooting to stop the threat, which shooting at the legs does not accomplish.

[DocMac]

15. Oh, please!!

So these young kids meant to murder people in that house?

And fox news is just a wonderful outlet to tell you the truth?

[Travis_0004]

19. They probably were not going to kill anybody

I simply said that 'when shooting is justified', then shooting center of mass is the only place I will aim.

I'll agree with you, that shots probably didn't need to be fired, but I wasn't there, so I don't know exactly what went down.

[DocMac]

22. My point is that a warning shot would have

put some real fear in those kids. Once in the house, you have to make a call you can live with.

I see that once the first kid was killed, the others ran.

[ManiacJoe]

37. Warning shots are illegal in most jurisdictions.

The reasoning goes:
If you are not shooting to stop (center of mass), then you do not feel your life is in danger.
If your life is not in danger, you are not allowed to be shooting at all since shooting a gun is always lethal force.

[DocMac]

116. Not when you're in your house.

And check Texas laws. Well here are all state laws on this matter:

http://www.homeinvasionnews.com/a-review-of-home-invasion-laws-in-the-u-s/

[ManiacJoe]

146. While I would not necessarily hold up Texas as a shining example,

feel free to quote the statutes you are trying to reference.

In most jurisdictions, your location makes no difference on the legality of warning shots.

[Travis_0004]

52. Sometimes there may not be time for warning shots

Plus, I would expect most people to know what a gun looks like. People always attack the shooter, what if he shot in the knees, what if he fired a warning shot etc. As I said, I wasn't there, I don't know how it went down.

What if the kids decided not to break into somebody's house that day. Thats my what if.

[DocMac]

92. Well, they are kids and you're not.

I don't see what weapon was used. We'll see what comes of it. I'll bookmark this thread.

[Angleae]

85. The bullets have to go somewhere.

If that bullet hits someone other than the intruders, or even comes close, you're going to jail for a long time.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. When a group kicks in the door, you DON'T KNOW what they intend.

Once the door is kicked in your own survival demands that you assume their worst intentions.

[oneshooter]

147. you are soooo right! If it isn't on Huffpo then it didn't happen!

[Speck Tater]

17. I've heard more than once

about intruders being wounded and then suing the homeowner or filing charges against them. I had a police office acquaintance once who told me never shoot to wound. If you only wound the intruder you will probably end up in jail or in civil court.

[PavePusher]

57. That officers advice is what will land you in jail.

Please do some more research. You should start with the name "Masaad Ayoob".

[Speck Tater]

102. It's all academic. I don't have a gun, and never will have a gun. Ever. nt

[PavePusher]

112. Not purely academic, it's a very practical subject worthy of some study.

And it affects self-defense without a gun as well.

[chrisa]

213. I bet that's total bull crap. I can't think of even one story

where a burglar successfully won a civil suit against a homeowner for shooting them. The only time I've heard of that happening was when a homeowner set up dangerous booby-traps, or something stupid like that, and I bet the burglar didn't even get that much.

Every "burglar wins" story I've ever seen is either so exaggerated that it's not even close to what happened, or is an urban legend / fabrication.

Most people can't actually shoot to wound anyways - and why would you want to? If you wound someone, they can still run / pull out a gun and shoot you or your loved ones / do whatever else that could possibly cause harm.

[Speck Tater]

214. You may be right.

These are stories I only heard by word of mouth, so I shouldn't put much stock in them, I guess.

[Lurks Often]

20. Shooting to wound will get you convicted

1. Either you are justified in using lethal force or you are not.
2. People can die from shot to the leg or arm
3. Hitting an arm or leg is much more difficult then hitting center mass when under the extreme stress of a such a confrontation
4. Warning shots can end up in unexpected places or worse an innocent person
5. No responsible law enforcement agency or firearms trainer advocates shooting to wound.

[DocMac]

25. I disagree.

Maybe these stand your ground laws and castle laws are different in different states.

So, if someone is breaking down your door, you need to wait till they come in and then shoot at their chest?

Shooting a person in an organ is a big difference than a leg or arm wound. At least you can stop the bleeding.

[Angus86]

29. Really?

Shooting a person in an organ is a big difference than a leg or arm wound. At least you can stop the bleeding.

Ever heard of the femoral artery? It's rather important and it's located right in the middle of the leg. If you so much as nick the femoral artery the guy would bleed out, VERY fast. In other words, by the time you got on the phone with the 911 operator he would be dead. He could still die very easily even if you "only shot him in the leg."

I can only imagine the civil suit that would follow if you shot the guy in the leg and he STILL died. "Your honor, the defendant was NOT in fear for his life. He shot the deceased in the leg in hopes of crippling him, and thus the death of the victim is not justified." Even if you win a wrongful death suit in this situation, lawyer fees are expensive.

Don't even pretend that the homeowner should have played "Lone Ranger" on this poor, poor, pitiful child. In real life the good guys can't shoot the guns out of the hands of the bank robbers, or even always win the day without bloodshed. Real life situations like this are terrifying, and the homeowner was justified in using deadly force, end of story.

[DocMac]

33. Maybe you are comfortable in your skin?

I'm comfortable in my training. I have no reason to believe that anyone who tries to invade my home will make it.

I'll decide if deadly force is needed, not you. As tragic as this is, everyone still has to live with their decisions.

If they were adults and armed, i'd have no problem with one shot one kill...with a warning shot.

[Angus86]

39. You can do whatever you want, of course

If someone breaks into your house, I'm sure you'll ultimately do what you think is best. The cops and justice system will sort out whether any warning/wing shots were justified, and you're quite correct that you will have to live with your decisions.

However, in this case, the homeowner WAS justified in using deadly force, in the eye of the law and (in my opinion) morally as well.

Also, since you've indicated your plan includes firing a warning shot, I recommend keeping a bucket of sand by your front and back door. That way no one (perp or bystander) is endangered by your discharging of a firearm in an unsafe direction.

Stay safe!

[DocMac]

82. I'll be just fine.

I'm getting too old to worry about the intentions of teenagers, until I know they are a serious threat.

I'll save my bullets for the people that really matter.

[PavePusher]

58. Please do some research on the subject.

Start with the name "Masaad Ayoob".

[DocMac]

79. So, why the name? Is that a Muslim name?

Is this your point?

[GreenStormCloud]

83. He is one of the most respected teachers of armed self-defense.

He has been writing books on the subject for about 40 years and is often brought into court as an expert witness. He has a armed defense school called Lethal Force Institute.

[sarisataka]

100. You forgot to add

the being a LEO he is very concerned with the aftermath of a self defense shooting; something many experts pass over.

His book In the Gravest Extreme is a near requirement to read for anyone who contemplates ever using a firearm in self defense.

I highly recommend his writings to anyone, pro or con

[GreenStormCloud]

101. True.

I do wish he would write an updated version of In the Gravest Extreme. Many states have since changed their laws.

Stressfire should also be a near requirement.

[ellisonz]

141. "Lethal Force Institute"

No agenda there...

[Johnny Rico]

143. Truth in advertising.

[ManiacJoe]

144. Lots of agenda there. Just not yours.

The agenda of LFI is to keep you out of jail by training you how, when, and where lethal force can be used in self defense and how to avoid needing it in the first place.

[ellisonz]

149. So why isn't it the "Self-Defense Institute"

[ManiacJoe]

154. My guess is that it is because they specialize in lethal self defense.

[ellisonz]

157. So it's mostly about guns? n/t

[sarisataka]

164. He is the summary of course LFI 1

The most famous LFI course, 40 hours of immersion training that (Lawyers and cops who've taken it agree) goes well beyond law school and the police academy in this critical decision-making area. Prevention, intervention and aftermath management are all thoroughly considered. The course includes: when the citizen can and cannot use a gun in self defense...tactics for home defense...street gunfighting tactics...how to take a criminal suspect at gunpoint...selection of guns, ammo, and holsters... psychological preparation for violent encounters...justifying your actions in court. Intensive combat shooting comprises 40% of the course, the remainder being lecture, video and student interaction. 40 hrs.


There are knife courses and LE only but the majority are firearms related to one degree or another.

[sarisataka]

163. I have never met...

Mr. Ayoob personally but have ready many of his books and articles.

If I may hazard a guess, it because he wishes to not hide behind any euphemisms. He wants to be clear that you are literally discussing life and death and need to treat the subject with the appropriate seriousness.

[ManiacJoe]

169. That would seem to be a good description.

Having met Ayoob while taking the "Judicious Use of Deadly Force" class, your description seems fairly accurate.
http://www.ayoob.com/df.html

[Air Marshal8]

167. U.S. Marine Corps. Same idea.

I don't think you are anywhere near serious.

[sarisataka]

131. This slipped by me before....

What difference would it make if he were Muslim?

[PavePusher]

134. Oh FFS...

[rl6214]

172. "is that a muslim name? Is this your point?"

Way to try to make it racial. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Massoud Ayoub is the premere name in self defense with firearms. Nothing racial intended, just edjucation.

[gejohnston]

173. It is an Arabic name

Don't know the religion. Could be a Christian or Arab Jew. Who cares?

[Callisto32]

124. Femoral atery, tibial artery, brachial artery.

Shall I go on?

[Lurks Often]

130. You are free to disagree

however that doesn't make you less wrong and this has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine or SYG laws.

[sarisataka]

24. Why not warning shots?

Several reasons:

-that bullet will go somewhere. There is risk to anyone within range now to be injured
-if you are confronting someone and they will advance on a gun, the warning shot will likely not deter them
-to a sociopath, you have shown you are reluctant to risk killing them. They will use that to kill you


Wounding shot-
Do not point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy- even a wounding shot can kill

When the adrenaline has your heart pounding like a steam engine, your vision is so sharp you can see every pore on the person you are facing and the whole universe has reduced to just the two of you... it takes all of you willpower to acknowledge anything else-- bystanders, your family, the sights on the gun in your hand... that leg is a very, very small target. The body at least looks possible and one solid hit can end the situation. Of course it can end a life.

Again- Do not point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy

[DocMac]

26. You have that Eagle , Globe and anchor.

I know about the heart pounding situation. These are very young kids here. I would have fired a shot at the back door and if they continued i'm not sure on a shoulder, leg, or arm shot. But I would have shot the first one through the door.

They would have ran after that.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. The homeowner DID tell them he was armed.

They broke in anyway.

Warning shots are an excellent way to get yourself killed. The bad guy will assume that you were trying to kill him and missed. He will think that his life is in danger and if he is armed he will return fire.

Shooting through the door is highly illegal. The bad guy is still outside the house and is not yet a danger to you. You might hit him anyway and then you are in a mess of trouble.

[DocMac]

35. I'll let a court decide that! nt

[DocMac]

75. You know the laws in Texas!

You know that you can shoot someone in your yard if you feel like your life is in danger.

Right or wrong?

[GreenStormCloud]

86. My life would not be in danger is I am inside and they are outside.

Once they kick in the door then I will assume the worst case and act on it. They will not get any benefit of doubt because giving them that benefit requires me to risk my life.

[DocMac]

119. Hey. The homeowners did what they had to.

I'm saying that if it was me, givin the same situation, I would not have killed the boy.

You can rant and cite books and preach and kick and scream all you want to.

I'm just calling bullshit, as is my right!

[sarisataka]

43. If you are 103% sure the doorframe will stop that round...

Maybe a warning there. Shooting through the door would likely be manslaughter, the threat is not imminent. I have seen people get off in that situation but would not want to risk a jury on that.

Semper Fi

[DocMac]

46. Well, i'm not sure how this scenario

played out. I know that this person claims that these kid started at the front door, and they were told that he was armed. I don't know if they heard him and i'm not defending these young criminals.

My argument is when people shoot to kill. How many shots were fired? This isn't a war zone. Now one of those kids can never backtrack and set themselves straight.

I'm a liberal and I won't concede.

Semper Fidelis

[sarisataka]

50. Fair enough

Try to hold back judgement based on news reports.
They can be, shall we say incomplete and/or biased.

[DocMac]

77. I see that.

Now we don't know if the homeowner used a shotgun or a rifle, or a pistol, or what caliber.

It's sad that such a young kid decided to do a stupid thing. It's sad that he can't make better choices from now on.

I'm willing to bet the other two will straighten up and quick, having gone through all this. The homeowner has to live with this too. Nobody wins. But yes, the people who live there are safe. That's a good thing.

[PavePusher]

127. If three teens were able to kick in the door, any handgun, rifle or shotgun would blow right through

...it with killing power to spare, but no idea of where the projectile(s) would stop.

The Four Rules of Gun Safety: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety

You are advocating a hideously blatent and dangerous disregard for #4.

Please stop. Please stop advocating a dangerous, careless, outright irresponsible action. Stop. Now.

[PavePusher]

60. "very young kids" can be quite lethal to adults, especially at three-on-one odds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Dartmouth_College_murders

[DocMac]

70. Adults can be lethal to kids as well.

Maybe you didn't read about the girl forced to run until she died.

Maybe you didn't read about the family that put a girl outside in a box for taking a popsicle. She died from heat exposure.

I sure would hate to go on!

[PavePusher]

109. You certainly shouldn't...

as your given examples have nothing to do with 3 juveniles posing a lethal threat to a single adult.

[PavePusher]

61. "But I would have shot the first one through the door."

And that bullet ends up.... where? In the neighbors house?

"They would have ran after that."

With such accurate prescience, can you please tell me this weeks' Lotto numbers?

[DocMac]

68. Did the article say it was a .308 or a shotgun?

I wouldn't give a person like you the lottery numbers!

You wouldn't use that wealth for good.

[gejohnston]

71. article didn't say either one

unless I missed it.

[DocMac]

72. Then why are people assuming that the round will go next door?

Why would someone assume that a warning shot would not stop these kids?

[gejohnston]

73. ask them

I'm just glad it wasn't my door getting kicked in or my finger pulling the trigger.

[PavePusher]

129. See Post # 126.

Seriously, I'm starting to think you don't really know much about guns, or doors, or both.

[DocMac]

117. I know. But it's important. nt

[PavePusher]

106. And you've now proven an ignorance of the ballistical properties of most firearms.

May I also suggest you look up the First Rule of Holes?

[DocMac]

115. Why? Did the article give you an exclusive?

What information do you have on ballistics? Perhaps it is my best interest to say goodbye to you and use that ignore. To me, you are hereby #3.

Good luck to you!

[rl6214]

174. AAAAAhahahahahahahah, I can't win so I'm going to ignore you, lalalalalalalalalalala

[Union Scribe]

93. Oh my God.

Please never do that. Please never do the things you're saying to do in this thread. Warning shots, firing through doors at God-knows-who, please don't.

[ManiacJoe]

36. 11am is a great time to do this type of crime

Most folks are at work from 9 to 5, thus there is no one home. Why do you think the kids first rang the doorbell?

[DocMac]

120. Girl scouts sell cookies during those hours too.

Why ring the doorbell if they know that no one is home? As you said, they are working.

If these kids are thinking of doing a crime, ok. Now you have to separate the actions between adults and children.

Are you saying that you're not capable of handling this situation? Other than killing one of them?

[ManiacJoe]

148. Girl Scouts do not kick in doors, but you knew that already.

Ringing the door bell is the test to see if anyone is home. Unfortunately for these kids, the false negative was not considered.

There is no need to separate the actions at the adults/children line, only the criminal/lawful line. Unfortunately for these kids, they were physically large enough to kick in a door and traveled in a group. That meets the definition of lethal force.

I am very capable of handling the situation. And that capability includes killing some or all of them if the criminals push it to that level.

[Callisto32]

123. No.

Non, Nyet, Nein, Iie.

Jesus, DO NOT SHOOT TO WOUND!!! EVER! "No, the attack wasn't threatening enough that I thought I needed to possibly kill the attacker, but I used a lethal amount of force anyway" is not something you want to find yourself saying. You'll have to live with yourself, and a lawyer like me will have a field day with a situation like that.

Shoot to STOP.

If you brandish a firearm, guess what? You just raised the level of violence to that of "lethal." If you are going to use lethal force, it is because you have decided that it may be necessary to kill someone to stop the threat he poses because your attacker has shown willingness to use lethal or severely maiming (usually the same) force. Killing isn't the goal, it is the unfortunate side effect of the fact that the surest way to stop a human being bent on violence is sudden, massive damage to the CN or C-P systems.

A common self-defense training method is what is known as the "failure to STOP" drill. It consists of two shots to central mass (lungs/heart) and a moment to assess the level of the threat after the first two, with a third shot aimed at the central nervous system, if necessary (the threat is still a threat, and not a possibly-mortally-wounded person in need of assistance).

[ileus]

14. That's the way it goes somedays.

[Speck Tater]

16. I don't like guns. I don't have a gun. I've posted here often with my anti-gun position... But...

If three people broke down my back door and didn't leave after being told I was armed. I would start shooting too. As much as I hate guns, I have the right to feel safe in my own home.

(I might consider a crossbow in lieu of a gun.)

[DocMac]

21. Why not fire a round into the back door while

they are trying to get in? Send a message.

I'll follow this case. Something just doesn't sound right. A 14 year old and 2 13 year olds?

As a former Marine, it would bother me a great deal to end the life of a 14 year old kid.

[Angus86]

41. Why not?

Firing a round in order to "send a message" is flat-out illegal pretty much anywhere. Warning shots are a bad idea.

[Clames]

47. How were your ever a Marine?

Firing through the door? What kind of training did you get? Complete and total disregard for basic firearms rules. Ex-Marine is a more fitting term.

[DocMac]

51. I served in the Marine Corp.

I was stationed at Camp Lejune between 1977 and 1981. My training was infantry, o311 I believe. Trained in mortars, machine gun, and MPFW and LAW crewman.

A warning shot TOWARDS the door or through the roof....who cares? Let them know you are serious.

Calling me out on my military service is bullshit. And I never did recognise the army as a disciplined force.

You can take that as you will.

[Clames]

53. No...it isn't bullshit.

And I'd put even my greenest soldier well ahead of you on discipline, they know what it means to be accountable for every shot fired. You obviously left your training behind in 1981.



Take that as you will.

[DocMac]

59. I have not forgotten my training.

Nor do you know what my job was upon release. People like you seem to make the same mistake over and over. You underestimate people.

It's not your fault. It's lack of training.

Don't respond, please.

[PavePusher]

63. It may be that is how you were trained... 30+ years ago.

Things have changed, and for very good reasons.

Do please try to keep up.

[Clames]

69. Don't like the truth...

...then put the "ignore" feature to use. I have, so far, almost 4 times the training just based on time in service alone so look who is underestimating people here.... Looks like you had the jar screwed on a little too tight. Sorry, there is no excuse for the irresponsible "warning" and "wounding" shots you are advocating. Period.

[DocMac]

74. I have no problem with the ignore.

In fact, you'll be the second in almost a year. I'm sorry you lack the training to understand what your surroundings are. It's not your fault.

Like I said, the Army don't care. They just train you to take up the positions that the Marines take. Does hill38 ring a bell.

Consider yourself ignored.

[Marengo]

216. I was a Marine as well, and "shooting to wound" was never part of my training...

or any combat doctrine that I was made aware of.

[gejohnston]

56. if the army isn't

hate to imagine what you think of the air force.

[hack89]

122. Where is that bullet going to land?

don't you care that you are endangering your neighbors?

[Clames]

125. He obviously...

...missed that day of training when he was a boot. He's a four-and-out that doesn't care to take responsibility for his actions and frankly doesn't deserve to speak against any other branch of the service. My younger brother is a former Marine (not an ex-Marine like Doc here) and I can only imagine what he would say about shooting blindly and shooting to wound. Shooting a bullet through the roof and possibly having it come down on somebody's child is better than aiming center mass at a known intruder and possibly killing them is a solid tactic for him....

[Speck Tater]

48. Maybe all I would need would be a track and field starter's pistol

and fire a couple blanks in the general direction of the door they are trying to enter. Or maybe a shotgun shell packed with flour that would make a very loud BOOM and a huge cloud of smoke!

I'm sure there are alternatives to shooting someone that could be used to scare the ever-loving shit out of them.

[GreenStormCloud]

89. NEVER use a gun to bluff with.

If your bluff gets called you are then in extreme danger. If you use that starter pistol the crook will think you are shooting at him and may return fire if he is armed. Same with the shotgun.

[Speck Tater]

105. You're probably right.

My first reaction is going to be to run and hide, anyway. That's the safest option as far as I'm concerned, and I have many exits and several acres of wooded land to disappear into long enough to make a 911 call.

[oneshooter]

150. Or you could, as a poster once suggested, use your "natural fighting ability"

to defeat the incoming horde.

[Speck Tater]

159. Ha!

What "natural fighting ability?" I'm 67 years old and I'm lucky to defeat a spider armed with a rolled up newspaper. In fact if the spider is carrying more than just that newspaper, I simply run away!

[GreenStormCloud]

170. "Natual fighting ability" is a kind of inside joke.

An anti-gun poster once said that guns weren't needed and that if attacked a person could win by using their "natural fighting ability". Since then it has become a joke phrase that pro-gun posters sometimes use.

[rl6214]

175. "Why not fire a round into the back door while they are trying to get in?"

Any round, even a .22 would go THRU the back door, not into it.

[SATIRical]

137. They brought themselves to do this

Everyone has choices in life. Some of those choices are very poor.

[SATIRical]

176. So your contention is that

they didn't know it was wrong?

Really?

[SATIRical]

178. Why choose you?

Because you asked "what the hell brought them to do such a thing as this?" like they didn't have a choice in it. Some people just choose to do stupid and, yes, evil things.

That is a ridiculous suggestion that they aren't responsible for their decisions. You sound like some of the ultra-religious people I know who blame our bad decisions on the influence of demons and the Devil.

[SATIRical]

180. ?????

I'm not accusing you of evil. I'm accusing you of naivete or a unrealistic view of humanity and cause and effect.

I've seen nothing to indicate maliciousness in your posts. I don't see how you can construe your posts as evil in any way.

[SATIRical]

182. Evil

really isn't that complex.

From MW:

a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>

Here's a question:

Let's suppose there is a teacher who is an awesome teacher and coach and has inspired hundreds of kids to turn their lives around, make something of themselves, and positively contribute to society. The only significant thing this person has ever done wrong is that at one point in his life he molested one kid.

Is this person evil?

Is that act of molesting considered evil?

[SATIRical]

184. You know there is an ignore function, right?

I am trying to have a reasonable and calm discussion and you are losing it. That is your problem, not mine. I am not getting upset with your posts. If you do not want to have a discussion with me, just don't respond.

If I didn't care what you thought, why would I ask?

If you can't answer because you already realize your answer would be contradictory, that is fine, just say so.

And you are right, it was two questions. I apologize.

I was simply pointing out that, as the word is defined, almost everyone would agree there are evil things in this world.

[SATIRical]

186. I don't care about you as a person

This is indeed an Internet message board, not a dating board. I am interested in your thoughts and ideas. I'm interested in how someone can believe someone or something else is responsible for the actions of those who commit crimes.

I'm also how you can believe nothing morally reprehensible exists.

Unfortunately, the previous post only had your feelings.

Feel free to reply if you care to express your thoughts and ideas on the topic. If you just want to emote, that is your right I guess, it's just not very interesting...

[SATIRical]

188. I'm optimistic

Even though you keep posting feelings, rather than thoughts, I have diminishing hope that you might actually address the points. I might be interested in your thoughts. Try me. Actually post some.

As for your religion or lack thereof, remember, you are the one who took issue with me using the word "evil". Not Me. You.

I have no idea what your religious perspective is.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

190. mites grow on chicken's butts.

that is my thought to you. have a wonderful day.

[SATIRical]

191. There you go.

Not only is that a thought, it is also factually correct!

I knew you could do it!

[SATIRical]

193. You just can't control yourself can you?

You realize that no one else is making you do this, right?

That was my original point.

Yes jury, I realize you will likely take this one as well.

[SATIRical]

195. So now the ultimate question

coming back to the thread.

Did you bring yourself to do it or did I?

Am I responsible for your actions in any way?

If not, then you made the point I originally made. Those criminals brought it on themselves by their actions.

[SATIRical]

198. I wouldn't delight

in having to shoot that 14-year-old. But I would do it.

In addition to obviously protecting my family, if it would stop even one other 14-year-old from making such a stupid choice (and prevents the start of a life of crime or their own premature death), then something good comes of it. If similar teens see that other peoples' stuff isn't worth their life, they may think twice.

As for how the world works and why, I don't know the why. But the how it simply cause-effect. Some causes we can control, some we cannot. For those we can, we have to live with the consequences of our choices, which may have long-term effects.

If more people evaluated those long-term effects, the world would probably be a better place..

[SATIRical]

204. Um, no

I'm not saying that something made them do it. I said the opposite. I said they chose it.

Reading is fundamental.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT_jJRlLfl7FcNqXE7cshNwwymBhJhTYsxVmJnq8th8iW7M1mNJJVjMcRv9Wg

[SATIRical]

207. Take a deep breath

push back from the keyboard and think about it for a second.

If I were a troll, why would I calmly be trying to engage you on the topic of the thread about something you said?

Wouldn't I be saying outlandish things off-topic trying to elicit a response off-topic?

Or I might be cussing and ranting incoherently.....hmmmmm.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

209. you have said freeperish shit.

take a deep breath and blow it out your freeper ass.

you had no reason to talk to me in this thread period.

[SATIRical]

210. So, if I understand this right

You post here so no one will respond to you or they can only respond if they agree with you 100% and want to pat you on the back?

Odd.

If you truly think I have posted freeperish stuff as opposed to just using that as an insult because I challenged your statement, feel free to report it and let a jury decide.

I won't argue with you on that claim because I honestly can't even imagine which post you would report with claims it sounds remotely freeperish.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

211. are you a registered Democrat?

[SATIRical]

212. Sorry, I don't play the

"personal information as a litmus test" game. And that goes for any information. I simply don't play the Internet that way. And no, I don't have a Facebook account either for that reason.

I will judge you on what you say and you can judge me on what I say. Like you said, I don't want to get to know you personally and I will not let you know me personally.

on edit: And BTW, you do realize that a troll would simply lie, right?

[SATIRical]

203. ????

I am choosing to attempt to have a conversation.

I've not said I was done interacting nor have I gone back and self-deleted all of my posts.

I've not gotten hyper-emotional or even upset at all in this exchange.

The exchange is not bothering me so why would I feel the need to disengage or control myself? Or make random accusations about FR. I've been there two, maybe three times from links on here. And I could say was "Bleh" and left.

Do I appear to be out of control to you? I feel very in control.

[SATIRical]

199. Maggots are not sexually mature

and therefore cannot have sex.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

201. duh.

fucking asshole. go back to FR and stay.

[Walk away]

28. This is being reported by My Fox in Texas. I wonder how they reported Travon Martin's murder. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Also being reported by NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.

I choose FOX because it had the most details and the longest video. I also posted a second link to another source.

[safeinOhio]

38. To little information to make a judgement on this case.

There may be much more to it than reported in the news.

[Speck Tater]

108. Information? We don't need no stinking information!

We're making up scenarios here. It's called mentally rehearsing alternatives, and making mental preparations for assorted contingencies. It has little or nothing to do with this specific case.

[AH1Apache]

128. My take on this is simple

if 3 individuals kick in my door and enter, at that point they are an immediate threat to myself and my wife and I won't hesitate to shoot. It's sad that a 14yo boy lost his life but, he's the one who made the bad choice to put himself in a position to lose his life, not the homeowner.

[ileus]

217. Life of crime cut short by a gunner baser zimmerman wannabe.

[slackmaster]

132. Tragic waste of a young life

Kicking in the door of an occupied home is a bad idea that can get you shot in ANY state, but especially Texas.

[Tejas]

208. "can get you shot in ANY state" - YUP!