Man, 72, fights back, shoots teens in home invasion

[oneshooter]

Two teenagers were shot Saturday night by a 72-year-old man they allegedly beat with a baseball bat during a home-invasion robbery in Ferry Pass.
About 8:45 p.m., three teenage males knocked on the door of a home on the 3300 block of Raines Street, Pensacola Police Department officials said.
When resident Jack Crawford, 72,answered the door, one of the teens hit him in the head with an aluminum bat and tried to force his way into the home.

More here: http://www.pnj.com/article/20110130/NEWS01/110130002/Man-72-fights-back-shoots-teens-in-home-invasion

Of course the homeowner should be in jail. After all all they wanted was "stuff" and by using a firearm instead of using his "natural fighting ability" was not fair at all, which shows that he was a coward. And they were just kids having a little "fun". He should have also called the police first so that they could protect him.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas


Do I need to add the little sarcasm thingy?

:sarcasm:

[shadowrider]

1. He should have used his fists or martial arts training.

MAJOR :sarcasm:

[ewagner]

2. no need to be snarky

courts have upheld for years the right to use deadly force when there is imminent risk of death or severe bodily injury. Getting hit in the head with a baseball bat is certainly a reasonable assumption of the risk of death or severe bodily injury.


Even us flaming liberals recognize the right to defend in a reasonable manner where there is adequate (not feigned, e.g. South Park's "he's coming right at us"...skit)reason to believe that severe bodily injury or death is possible.

The 72 year old man has a legitimate claim of self-defense.

[shadowrider]

6. Bookmark this thread and come back later to check it

You'll see why.

[Buzz Clik]

7. No kidding. This thread is an odd persecution

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Perhaps you have not seen some of the posts from other DU member

who are anti rights. The good news is that many get deleted

[Veronica.Franco]

10. There's a lesson here .... don't answer the door ...

Why would anyone open their door to strangers? ... I NEVER answer the door unless it's someone I know and am expecting ...

I'm glad the 72 year old man was able to defend himself ... they could have killed him with one blow to the head ...

[oneshooter]

17. You really don't spend much time here, do you?

"Of course the homeowner should be in jail. After all all they wanted was "stuff" and by using a firearm instead of using his "natural fighting ability" was not fair at all, which shows that he was a coward. And they were just kids having a little "fun". He should have also called the police first so that they could protect him."

All of the above have been given as reasons that you do not need a firearm for defense of yourself.

No snark from me. I was just anticipating the replies that would be received from the anti-self defense bunch.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[badtoworse]

18. They're late. The usual suspects should have weighed in by now.

[Orrex]

3. If only there had been some way not to answer the door for three strangers after dark

Not saying that he should be jailed. If his life was in danger with no escape available--as appears to be the case--then more power to him.

[slackmaster]

11. I want to live in a world where it's safe to answer your door at any time

Getting rid of criminals is a step in the right direction.

[Orrex]

13. That would be a lovely world to live in

Until it exists, either look through the peephole or don't open the door.

[Katya Mullethov]

24. I am sorta feelin that door thing provoked it too .....

But the parents of the developer are the ones that really need to hang over this .

[Orrex]

25. That makes two times that that joke wasn't funny.

I don't see any posts asserting that he wasn't justified in defending himself. Quite the contrary, in fact.

However, he also had the option of not opening the door for strangers after dark. It's not a matter of claiming that he provoked his assailants--who clearly showed up armed with the intent to attack him--it's simply a matter of presenting other options.


For instance, if he hadn't opened the door, would he have needed to have his scalp reattached to his head?

[Statistical]

26. Pretty easy to kick a door in. The idea that he would be safe without opening the door is silly.

Most doors are well constructed but most door frames are pieces of shit. The frame cracks long before the door gives.

[Orrex]

28. So.... what exactly?

We should open our doors at every knock, with gun in hand, so that we can protect our precious door frames?

[Statistical]

30. Yup. That is what I said. You accurately summed up my position. n/t

[SteveM]

50. Concerning the attack by 3 thugs...

Often a door is knocked, and when no one answers or does not answer fast enough, the door is kicked in. On the other hand there is some data (I don't have the source at hand) which suggests that some home-invaders relish the confrontation and chance to get some "juice," and they are comin' in anyway they want, door answered or not.

I still answer my door depending on what I can see outside. I take a chance. But I have had an instance where someone knocked, then tried the locked door handle. I knew what that meant. I phone the police with my left hand (my right held a revolver).

[spin]

14. In Florida there is no duty to retreat ...

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

[Orrex]

15. Nifty, but does that law also stipulate that you have to open the door to strangers after dark?

Yes, it would be nice to be able to open your door to anyone at all hours of the day or night, but in such a world the guns themselves would be largely superfluous, and that's not the world we live in.

[spin]

16. No, that's your choice ...

But if you do and someone tries to force his way into your home, you can use lethal force to stop him.

If someone bangs on the door in the middle of the night, I usually will open the door but I have my hand in my pants pocket on a S&W Model 642 .38 snub nosed revolver. Fortunately, I have never had to use it.

[Atypical Liberal]

20. I do it.

Just two nights ago my neighbor came over and knocked on the door after dark. He had locked his keys in his car and wanted to know if I had tools to help him out.

I reserve the right to open my door to whom I please. I also reserve the right to take up arms in defense of my home, self, and family.

I should not have to retreat in my own home, and fortunately, in many places, people don't have to.

[Orrex]

21. Of course, none of that is inconsistent with anything I've posted here

[Glassunion]

22. But where oh where does the actus reus in this case occur?

Was it when the Home Invaders were shot? But they were shot because they hit the home owner on the head. But he was hit on the head because he opened the door. If he had not opened the door he would have never been hit on the head. Then again, if he never moved into that house, they would not have been knocking on his door. In fact, if the builder never built the home, there would have not been a house there at all and no crime whatsoever would have happened at that house. I blame the mother and father of the developer. If that child would have never been born to, been raised by, been supported through school, and released unto the world to build a home which would later be the site of a horrific shooting, then none of this would have happened. Seems to me that the majority of guilt falls on the parents of the home developer.

[rrneck]

23. That house clearly had too many doors. That was the problem. nt

[Statistical]

27. We need door control

[Euromutt]

29. Sounds to me like you're blaming the victim

It's a small step from "he could just have not opened the door" to "what were you doing in that part of town in the first place?" and "well, dressed like that, she was practically asking for it." The very fact that you find it necessary to clarify that you're "not saying that he should be jailed" implies that you at least entertained the thought that he should be. For what? Being the victim of assault with a deadly weapon?

Do me a favor, will you? Next time one of those self-righteous twats comes on here telling us that gun owners are all living in perpetual irrational fear of our neighbors, and that if only we'd divest ourselves of our firearms we could live "unarmed and unafraid," I expect you to step up and argue that we should be afraid, and cower in our houses refusing to open the door to anyone after 5 PM. Preferably with the lights off, pretending not to be home.

[Orrex]

31. It's very thoughtful of you to tell me what I think

The very fact that you find it necessary to clarify that you're "not saying that he should be jailed" implies that you at least entertained the thought that he should be.

Actually, the fact that I found it necessary to clarify that point shows that I know how this forum operates; specifically, any suggestion that a homeowner should not have fired is taken as an explicit claim that he was in the wrong or that I want his (or all) guns taken away.

I expect you to step up and argue that we should be afraid, and cower in our houses refusing to open the door to anyone after 5 PM. Preferably with the lights off, pretending not to be home.

The very fact that you find it necessary to project this paranoid view onto me implies that you do harbor such a fear.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. All well and good but if some had their way

the homeowner would never have been allowed to legally own the gun he did use.

And why should the advice in a civil society be: don't open your door after dark.

The sun goes down and the streets are consigned to the hoodlums?

Here's a better message: break into someone's house and it could be your last mistake.

[shadowrider]

33. The conversion to the dark side is complete young skywalker n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. I was promised cookies

[X_Digger]

35. ...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. I lol'ed

[shadowrider]

37. Tell you what. I'll pick the restaurant, we'll go out for dinner

Because I pick the place, to make things even, I'll let you pay. Deal?

[DonP]

38. Good point - in Chicago he'd be dead N/T

[Orrex]

41. Do you lock your car when you park in a rough section of town?

Do you lock your doors when you're away from home?

Why should the advice in a civil society be: don't trust your fellow citizen?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. Do you consider thieves to be your equal?

I trust my fellow citizens.

Thieves living in the area? Not so much.

[gravity556]

45. I like how you think, Unicorn

Very simple math-don't want to be shot while breaking into a house? Don't break into the freaking house. AZ is working to put a bill on the ballot to prevent criminals (and their families) from suing their victims for injuries sustained while committing a crime. Should prevent the bullshit "My baby was a good boy! He was turning his life around! That man should have just given him the keys to the car instead of shooting him to stop a carjacking" lawsuits.

Criminals VOLUNTARILY commit crimes. If you VOLUNTARILY do something stupid, dangerous and illegal (like a home invasion), and get shot for your trouble, that's YOUR problem-not mine.

As far as "duty to retreat", if you're in your own home, you have retreated. There should never be any call for you to flee your home in order to avoid injury because some low life decided that he deserves your stuff more than you.

[Euromutt]

39. I don't know what you think; I can only go what you say

And the logical implication of what you said is that you're, in effect, blaming the victim for opening the door in the first place.

The very fact that you find it necessary to project this paranoid view onto me implies that you do harbor such a fear.

How does that follow? I'm not the one advocating not opening the front door to strangers when it's not even 9 PM.

[Orrex]

40. I didn't say anything about hiding with the lights off. You projected that paranoia

Where did it come from, exactly? Certainly not from anything I wrote, except perhaps by some paranoid extrapolation of it.

And no matter how many times you accuse me of blaming the victim, it's simply a strawman mischaracterization of my view, so I see no need to refute it.


By the way... Do you lock your doors at night? Do you draw your blinds? Do you lock your car when you park in a rough part of town? Why would you do these things?

[GreenStormCloud]

43. I lock doors in daytime too.

Do you lock your doors at night?

I always lock them. Do you draw your blinds?

Do you lock your car when you park in a rough part of town?

I always lock it, no matter what part of town.

Why would you do these things?

They are simple reasonable precautions that take only a second or two. Slipping a gun into my pocket is also a simple, easy, reasonable precaution, just in case trouble come calling.

[Euromutt]

46. Call it hyperbole

From Wikipedia:

Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee<1>; from ancient Greek ὑπερβολή 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

No, you didn't say anything about hiding with the lights off; I merely took what you did say a step further.

By the way... Do you lock your doors at night? Do you draw your blinds? Do you lock your car when you park in a rough part of town? Why would you do these things?

Yes, yes and yes.
I close the blinds partly to keep in heat, and so that I don't get woken at dawn.
I lock my car when I park it, because I'm not going to be in or by it in the event that somebody decides to help himself to the contents. Same reason I lock the doors on my house when I go out.
And I lock the doors when I go to bed so that, if someone does try to intrude, they can't just walk in while I'm asleep.

[david_vincent]

4. Unfortunately, yes, you do

I learned the other day that there are people here on DU who are immaculately oblivious and take everything, even the flagrantly sarcastic or humorous, at face value.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Looks like all three are being charged with home invasion...

Sounds to me like he shoud have used a bigger gun if all three are still being charged.
Nevertheless, I'm glad he was able to fend off three invaders.

[Remmah2]

9. 3 assailants

There's your justification for a three round magazine capacity limit!

:sarcasm:

[YllwFvr]

19. it took peter soulis 22 shots to down ONE man

17 of them were excellent hits. This guy had to face 3. Thats 66 rounds!

[AzNick]

47. 22 rounds? What caliber?

One round of 38 Sp + p HP will be enough if "excellent".

That's what I have for home defense.

[ManiacJoe]

49. .40 SW

From the article http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci :

"Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream."

Handguns are notoriously poor man stoppers, used only out of convenience to carry. In your case "excellent" is defined only as a "central nervous system hit".

[east texas lib]

12. I recommend a larger caliber popgun and some range time...

But that's just me. It was generous of him to assist our intrepid aspiring bullet traps with upping their street cred, however.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Both hits were in the torso. He needs a bigger gun. N/T

[AzNick]

48. Yes, sounds bizarre. What was he shooting? 22LR?

And even 22LR is perfecly lethal at short range.