Police: Pot might be factor in Montana killing

Thought he just had a motion sensor ALARM not a light? Bright ass spot lights usually make people freak out if they are up to no good.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Rollitup mobile app
 
spandy said:
And I say


We both are/did.

I value life over property. However, you are entitled to an opinion, so enjoy.

And No.
Click to expand...

Well then I appreciate your change in approach. What I said was not a judgment or opinion. It followed deductive from your comments.

You charged into the thread thinking I was some damn liberal that wants to take your guns. I'm not.
 
I do not own a gun, and I have very mixed feelings on gun ownership.... but if someone comes in to your home, all bets are off. Deadly force is justifiable imo. I do not like, nor support people walking around in public strapped, but when it comes to your castle I see no problem having a gun, and using it if someone breaks in.
 
^^^ totally agree do not get a gun if you are not comfortable.using it. The peace of mind will quickly turn to fear when it gets used against you cus you could not pull the trigger.

Sent from my SCH-R930 using Rollitup mobile app
 
abandonconflict said:
I don't have to guess why you're there.

I'm looking at you on cctv. I have a firearm, and you have no idea that I'm about to pop out and put holes in you.

Your point (rhetorical questions) therefore are non sequitur.

I'm not arguing for a change in law or that some one was guilty or not. What I am arguing is that some people value property over life.
Click to expand...


You won't answer because you CAN'T answer.

NOBODY knows the intent of a home invader...except the home invader.

The home invader could be there for your T.V., your weed, or to tie you and your family up and force you to watch while they rape your wife before killing her and the rest of you. You won't know until it's too late.

You claim this citizen acted irrationally in order to defend property, but you don't know the intentions of the home invader. His action may have saved his life, and the life of his housemate, and I'll give ANY citizen defending their homes from invasion the benefit of the doubt.

You can't get shot breaking into a home if you don't rob homes. Period.

FUCK that dead "student".
 
It is hard to argue that he was defending anything when it is obvious that he was just waiting for the opportunity to kill someone legally.

Before you try to school someone about being ready to kill, make sure you have more experience than they do in such matters.
 
abandonconflict said:
It is hard to argue that he was defending anything when it is obvious that he was just waiting for the opportunity to kill someone legally.

Before you try to school someone about being ready to kill, make sure you have more experience than they do in such matters.
Click to expand...
What do you mean hard to argue he was defending anything? Anything inside the home is what was being defended, so pretty much your life, the life of your family, your pets, and then your belongings.

Or do you think the person who broke in has to then take a further action to make his intentions clear, because you never know it could be the Publishers clearing house sweepstakes person, or a really gung ho girl scout wanting to give you free samples while you slept. Those are probably most likely the reason people break into your home right?
 
abandonconflict said:
I'm not arguing against the castle doctrine in general here.

Familiarize yourself with this particular case.
Click to expand...
I did, Intruder goes into someones home in MONTANA a state which has a castle doctrine and one in which a majority of the population owns guns. Intruder gets shot because it wasn't the first time he had robbed this particular person either, he had a history of criminal behavior and now that his life is ended and his crime spree over, we want to make him into some poor innocent toddler who accidentally wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
NoDrama said:
I did, Intruder goes into someones home in MONTANA a state which has a castle doctrine and one in which a majority of the population owns guns. Intruder gets shot because it wasn't the first time he had robbed this particular person either, he had a history of criminal behavior and now that his life is ended and his crime spree over, we want to make him into some poor innocent toddler who accidentally wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...

Completely distorting the argument here. I have stayed on point. I'm not defending the intruder, arguing against the castle doctrine or saying anything about law.

This guy was clearly just waiting for the opportunity to kill someone legally.

Your inability to even acknowledge that indicates that you value property over life.
 
abandonconflict said:
Completely distorting the argument here. I have stayed on point. I'm not defending the intruder, arguing against the castle doctrine or saying anything about law.

This guy was clearly just waiting for the opportunity to kill someone legally.

Your inability to even acknowledge that indicates that you value property over life.
Click to expand...

Killing someone legally? You mean the guy was prepared to defend his life? Same thing different wording, one is loaded with emotional pleas, the other untainted reality. He had no idea if the guy in the garage was armed, had bad intentions, was a rapist or a what have you. It has nothing to do with property and everything to do with life.
 
abandonconflict said:
I would rather have gun owners who don't want to kill.
Click to expand...


Wanting to and being ready to aren't the same thing.

These kids were breaking in to homes. They picked the wrong house. I'm not saying that's how I would have handled the situation, but I don't blame the home owner for defending his family and his property.
 
NoDrama said:
Killing someone legally? You mean the guy was prepared to defend his life? Same thing different wording, one is loaded with emotional pleas, the other untainted reality. He had no idea if the guy in the garage was armed, had bad intentions, was a rapist or a what have you. It has nothing to do with property and everything to do with life.
Click to expand...

He was not in danger. He knew this because he was looking at an unarmed teenager on cctv. He anticipated that his home would be broken into. He was armed and popped out to surprise the kid. Like you, he values property over life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top