I have nothing but a big wide grin about this!
So a 23 year old punk breaks in to this 71 year old's house...
- Thread starter Mejnoon
- Start date
Man, that kid will never be able to live that down. When/if he goes off to college, he'll get ripped by students and professors alike.
+1 to the old guy. I'm sure he got a good laugh after that.
+1 to the old guy. I'm sure he got a good laugh after that.
I'm guessing he hasn't the proverbial two brain cells to rub together.
College is a long way off for him, maybe a course in Big Mac assembly...
maybe a course in Big Mac assembly...
That will probably be a little to rough for him also.
+1
If I'm not mistaken, just him having a knife in his hand is proof enough of intent to harm. Even if it wasn't, I wouldn't wait for him to start swinging before taking action.
He shoulda got at least 10 years. He earned way more than 4 1/2 and a whuppin when he swung that knife
Tim's right. Statutes vary per state, but self-defense using lethal force is virtually always justified if the person you're using it against endangers your life first, provided you didn't initiate the confrontation. In this case, the guy had a knife, the brandishing of which, alone, might have been sufficient justification for the homeowner to use lethal force. The fact that the perp actually tried to stab the homewoner with it is a slam dunk. Lethal force is totally justified. And it doesn't have to be "equal" force, in the sense that a gun is not "equal" to a knife. It does have to be proportional force, which is to say, the force used must be proportional to the force defended against. But here, proportionality does not refer to the method of the force, but the effect or result of it. In that sense, lethal is lethal. A knife can kill you, same as a gun, so using a gun to defend against a knife is justifiable. Also, a CCW has nothing to do with whether or not lethal force is justifiable in a given situation. You always have to be able to show justification for the use of lethal force, regardless of whether your weapon is concealed or not. Therefore, having a CCW doesn't really have a bearing on whether or not it is "legal to shoot him in most states." However, if you do conceal a weapon (legally), you have to have sufficient justification just to brandish it, which in many states is a perceived imminent threat of harm to yourself or another by an aggressor. That would apply whether or not you actually discharged it.
Great story, by the way. Thanks for sharing it.
Last edited:
This made my day!
By I agree. The guy takes a swing with a knife and only gets 4 1/2 years?
Isn't that a muder attempt?
Quite possibly the best story of the week
A bright light on an otherwise dark week! Thanks for sharing!
in the state of georgia force up to and including lethal is justified where your life or property or someone elses life or property is in danger or where you feel the criminal is a threat others/public safety.
we need more criminal/predator death.
we need more criminal/predator death.
I don't care who you are, that there is funny.
Horatio's argument is impassioned, respectful, logical, and probably legally sound, but it underscores a secondary problem that the victim faces- having his actions examined under a microscope, nanosecond by nanosecond, by a horde of ambtitious lawyers motivated more by greed, fame, professional aspirations, and political ideology than pursuit of justice, determined to show how smart they are.
I don't want to sound as if I'm recommending excessive violence, but if the criminal should somehow lose his ability to testify on his own behalf at some future trial, the victim won't have to suffer the additional indignity of having his good name besmirched by some low life. No trial, no reports to file.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VeFsRseqFY[/YOUTUBE]
I think the kid got what he deserved and I wouldn't have been mad if the old guy did worse to him. This reminds me of a few years back a man tried to rob an old lady and she pulled out her revolver and let loose on him. I am personally not a fan of the laws about this kind of stuff. I'm sorry, but if someone is breaking into my home or attempting to rob me or my family, that makes me the victim. At that point I should be able to defend myself in any manner I see fit without having to worry about future legal ramifications. And people feeling sorry for criminals and giving poor excuses like they're on drugs are just ridiculous. It may well be a disease, but it's a disease they chose to have.
Great response. Also, I believe you don't need a CCW to purchase a handgun. I've never been asked for mine when purchasing a handgun. You only need it to legally carry it concealed.
College is a long way off for him, maybe a course in Big Mac assembly...
That would require work, which apparently he doesn't believe he needs to do if he can just steal the things other people work for. I wish the homeowner would have had a little more time to "talk" to this thief.
maybe a course in Big Mac assembly...
I heard, not too long ago, that to work and McDonald's one must be in school or pursuing some sort of education, Higher or other. Not sure if this is in the young man's future.
This reminds me of the story where some kid in the UK tried to rob some old guys house, also using a knife. Ends up the old guy was not only a vet, but he had been some super elite commando. The vet ended up taking the punk's knife and stabbing him with it.
I can assure you that no one at my local McDonald's is pursuing any form of education. Unless of course, they are being educated on how to never get an order right.
Equal force? Proven intent? You mean," Give the bad guy as many chances as possible to hurt you before you defend yourself." That sort of pandering, sissy crap is why I'm never leaving Texas. Here, if someone is taking a baseball bat to your car in the driveway, it is legal to shoot them. Let alone if they break into your house.
That guy didn't even get beat up that bad. A real BEATING will have you looking like airbags deployed underneath your face. Drug addiction is a total choice. You have to deal with the consequences of that choice. It's even more preventable than AIDS is.
That guy didn't even get beat up that bad. A real BEATING will have you looking like airbags deployed underneath your face. Drug addiction is a total choice. You have to deal with the consequences of that choice. It's even more preventable than AIDS is.
What I wrote was practically a straight-up recitation of what every first-year law student gets taught in a Criminal Law course, so it's essentially legally sound, but of course varies based on what jurisdiction you're in. (Disclaimer: I am not offering legal advice. If any of you guys end up shooting someone in your home based on what I wrote, I am not responsible!)
And, I might also add, that I'm very pro-victim, and a supporter of gun rights. I keep guns in my home, and wouldn't hesitate to plug anyone who posed a threat to me or my loved ones. Having said that, the justification requirements make sense. We can't just have people shooting other people for no good reason. And having said that, if the old man had shot the guy dead, instead of just beating him to a pulp, and it took any investigating officer more than a few cursory glances to realize the killing was justified, it would make me lose my lunch.
Similar threads
