NationStates Jolt Archive

Because it's legal for the homeowner to cap you ('http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_burglarshot_070504/')

AUGUSTA, Ga. — A man authorities say had broken into an Army officer’s home to steal guns was shot to death by the Iraq war veteran, who had come home early.

Capt. Barre Bollinger told police he returned from work around 3:30 p.m. Wednesday and found his house had been ransacked, Richmond County sheriff’s investigator Thomas Johnson said.

Bollinger, who is stationed at Fort Gordon, entered his bedroom and noticed that guns were missing.

He grabbed his SKS rifle — a weapon similar to an AK47 assault rifle — and called 911, Johnson said.

“While on the phone with 911, he sees the suspect approaching his back door,” Johnson said. “Because he believes the man now is armed with his stolen weapons, Mr. Bollinger fires at him three times.”

Errol Lavar Royal, 29, was shot at least twice in the stomach area. He was later pronounced dead at Medical College of Georgia Hospital.

Royal lived with his parents near the home that was burglarized, police said. A search of his home turned up two guns taken from Bollinger’s house and marijuana, Johnson said.

Police had no immediate plans to charge Bollinger in the shooting.

Hopefully, the (29 and still living at home?) dead guy never had a chance to reproduce.

Honestly, burglarizing is one thing, stealing weapons is another thing, but coming back in a bit after you've ransacked the place is just completely stupid.

Maybe he should have checked to see if the homeowner was home (maybe watch from across the street) before he waltzed into a hail of gunfire.

DO NOT STEAL FROM A WAR VETERAN

EVER

People back there didnt had the stupid ideal that all lives are equal.

man...two 7.62s in the gut.

He certainly paid for his crime.

OMG the n00b got shot to death lolz. People getting killed r00lz!

:rolleyes:

Yaaayy!

Let’s celebrate death!

Death vaguely connected with gun rights!!

Yaaaay! Death!

Because stealing something is far worse than shooting a man dead with an assault rifle.

Yaaayy!

Let’s celebrate death!

Death vaguely connected with gun rights!!

Yaaaay! Death!

Because stealing something is far worse than shooting a man dead with an assault rifle.

Eh, don't even bother. To far too many people, committing a crime instantly dehumanizes someone, as if they have to be an evil and worthless person to even think of stealing.

Because, of course, there's no such thing as desperation. Not that I'm trying to give criminals a free ride, but there's really nothing to celebrate in a relatively young man getting shot to death, even if it's in the process of the robbery. Everyone makes a shitty choice now and then.. some of those turn out shittier than others. This one was really shitty. But, whether or not the shooting was justified, I don't think the inevitable celebratory remarks about this man's death are.

Quite frankly, that is one less dumbass to infect the population of the Earth.

Only a about 6.8 billion left to go...:rolleyes:

Edit: By the by, I include myself in that 6.8 billion, but someone's gotta be around to make sure the others go down with me.

I guess someone forgot to tell the veteran that he is not in Iraq any more... :p

If someone breaks into my house and steals two lethal weapons from me, I'm not going to wait to see if the burgler is friendly or not. I'm not stupid. I know that people get murdered by robbers. I'm firing first.

Yay right to protect self and property. It's one thing to steal money. It's another to steal weaponry from the house of a war vet. Far too many people. Our attempts at destroying natural selection have breed a race of super-idiots. Our stupid will be our downfall. When will people learn that you don't rob someone who's life most likely depended on gunning down a-holes. They weren't gunned down for a reason.

Eh, don't even bother. To far too many people, committing a crime instantly dehumanizes someone, as if they have to be an evil and worthless person to even think of stealing.

Because, of course, there's no such thing as desperation. Not that I'm trying to give criminals a free ride, but there's really nothing to celebrate in a relatively young man getting shot to death, even if it's in the process of the robbery. Everyone makes a shitty choice now and then.. some of those turn out shittier than others. This one was really shitty. But, whether or not the shooting was justified, I don't think the inevitable celebratory remarks about this man's death are.

The justification in this instance was that the homeowner had reason to believe that the individual approaching his home was armed. Thus, he was justified in firing.

The law makes a clear distinction between aggression and defense.

The justification in this instance was that the homeowner had reason to believe that the individual approaching his home was armed. Thus, he was justified in firing.

The law makes a clear distinction between aggression and defense.

Again, I'm not making a decision on that matter. My concern is, as I said, the dehumanization of criminals.

Yaaayy!

Let’s celebrate death!

Death vaguely connected with gun rights!!

Yaaaay! Death!

Because stealing something is far worse than shooting a man dead with an assault rifle.

Thats right. It is. :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

Yaaayy!

Let’s celebrate death!

Death vaguely connected with gun rights!!

Yaaaay! Death!

Because stealing something is far worse than shooting a man dead with an assault rifle.

Yes and if we shot more of them we'd have a lot less crime I am betting.

Love it. How most crime stories should end--dead criminal!

Again, I'm not making a decision on that matter. My concern is, as I said, the dehumanization of criminals.

They break the codified rules of society, even though they know what the rules are. Thus, they are in violation of the social contract and are not extended the full protections that a law abiding citizen receives.

From everything I've seen, crimes of desperation are far rarer then we might think.

The justification in this instance was that the homeowner had reason to believe that the individual approaching his home was armed. Thus, he was justified in firing.

The law makes a clear distinction between aggression and defense.

In Georgia, where Augusta is, we are not required to retreat in our own homes.

Because it's legal for the homeowner to cap you ('http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_burglarshot_070504/')



Hopefully, the (29 and still living at home?) dead guy never had a chance to reproduce.

Honestly, burglarizing is one thing, stealing weapons is another thing, but coming back in a bit after you've ransacked the place is just completely stupid.

Maybe he should have checked to see if the homeowner was home (maybe watch from across the street) before he waltzed into a hail of gunfire.


Three well aimed shots is not a hail of fire.

Our attempts at destroying natural selection have breed a race of super-idiots.That's not the issue. The issue is that evolution seldom makes things better than they need to be. Humanity has all that it needs to spread like a virus and flourish as it has done and - for now - continues to do. If it is to improve, it has to take matters into its own hands; to rid human nature of its stupidity would require throughoutly re-engineering it.

Hopefully the murderer is charged. It wasn't self defense. If he had seen the robber carrying a gun, then yes. He stood there and waited for him to come through the door and then shot him. Premeditated murder.

Just because hes armed doesn't mean he's going to shoot you. The man should have pointed his gun at him first and told him to drop the gun. If the burgler was completely insane and actually decided to raise his gun at him it is then justified for the man to shoot the burgler.

Yes and if we shot more of them we'd have a lot less crime I am betting.

Love it. How most crime stories should end--dead criminal!

I agree, death penalty for speeding (perhaps some sort of rocket launcher mounted on a speed camera), huzzah

Just because hes armed doesn't mean he's going to shoot you. The man should have pointed his gun at him first and told him to drop the gun. If the burgler was completely insane and actually decided to raise his gun at him it is then justified for the man to shoot the burgler.


It doesn't seem he was armed though. The report says they found the two stolen guns in the burgular's house, along with marijuana.

Hopefully the murderer is charged. It wasn't self defense. If he had seen the robber carrying a gun, then yes. He stood there and waited for him to come through the door and then shot him. Premeditated murder.

Bullshit. If you honestly believe your life is in danger, you are justified in taking whatever steps are required to ensure your survival.

The homowner knew this man was a criminal. He knew that he was probably armed.

An armed criminal in the comission of a crime has no rights. He deserves everything he gets - up to and including death.

Bullshit. If you honestly believe your life is in danger, you are justified in taking whatever steps are required to ensure your survival.

The homowner knew this man was a criminal. He knew that he was probably armed.

An armed criminal in the comission of a crime has no rights. He deserves everything he gets - up to and including death.

He wasn't armed though. Therefore the homeowner killed an unarmed man at his back door..

Even still, if he was a vet, then he'd have good aim and at least take him out at the legs.

He wasn't armed though. Therefore the homeowner killed an unarmed man at his back door..

Even still, if he was a vet, then he'd have good aim and at least take him out at the legs.

True, but the vet had good and reasonable reason to believe the criminal was armed. That's all that is required for self-defense.

And since he was a vet, he'd never be stupid enough to aim at the legs. Weapon instructors have a name for shooting to wound - they call it trying to miss. A trained shooter will ALWAYS shoot for the centre of mass, both to maximize their chance of hitting and in remembrance of rule two of firearms safety - any time you are trying to shoot someone, you are trying to kill them.

However, he had good reason to believe that the intruder was armed. This man had already shown his willingness to flout the laws securing the rights of the veteran. To those saying that he should have held him up or shot him in the leg, I ask why the victim of the intrusion should be forced to put his own life at risk? As a trained shooter, the veteran would have known that it is exceptionally difficult to bring down an agressor with anything but multiple shots to the center of mass.

Although it is unfortunate that the intruder died, in violating the homeowner's rights to property and security he assumed a certain measure of risk: risk that he might get caught and punished, and risk of injury or death at the hands of those whom he was willing to abuse. In putting the homeowner in perfectly reasonable fear for his own safety, he opened himself up to a world of consequences and suffered as a result.

edit: damn you, Dododecapod!

Yaay Death!

Yaay Guns!

Please...

Come on, people. This guy knew for a fact that two guns were missing from his home and that the thief came back. That's reason enough to shoot first. Being a trained solider doesn't mean that you're able to hit in the legs or just shoot to wound, it means aiming for center mass, which is also about the only way to truly incapacitate a target. This guy had reason to believe his life was in danger and every right to defend himself.

Hopefully the murderer is charged. It wasn't self defense. If he had seen the robber carrying a gun, then yes. He stood there and waited for him to come through the door and then shot him. Premeditated murder.

He didn't have to wait to see the guy. He had a right to believe this guy breaking BACK into his home was armed and dangerous, that right there is plenty reason for self defense. And no he didn't stand there and wait. He heard the door opening as he was calling the cops and went to go see. Did you ever read the story? Ohh and "Premeditated Murder" is rationally considering how to kill a person and then planning it out, in order to either be more successfull, and/or to escape capture. This man did nothing of the sort.

All I have to say is that 'burglarized' is a really, really stupid word.

Oh deary me. A criminal got shot whilst violating the property of another, having already done so once before. My, how I feel for the poor fellow. :rolleyes:

Good on the Iraq veteran. If people demonstrate contempt for social conventions and laws, they have no right to then look to them for protection.

Incidently, an SKS is almost nothing like an AK47. No idea who put that in the story.

That's kind of like saying "he owned a vintage M1 Garand, kind of close to an M16".


Oh and this kind of makes me sad. I don't really like your law in the US of "if they're in your house, go for it, kill 'em". Waste of lives, to be fair, because you should have Home Contents Insurance for that kind of eventuality, rather than semi-automatic rifles.

Hopefully the murderer is charged. It wasn't self defense. If he had seen the robber carrying a gun, then yes. He stood there and waited for him to come through the door and then shot him. Premeditated murder.

Rubbish. If I thought I might be shot I'd shoot first.

Eh, don't even bother. To far too many people, committing a crime instantly dehumanizes someone, as if they have to be an evil and worthless person to even think of stealing.

Because, of course, there's no such thing as desperation. Not that I'm trying to give criminals a free ride, but there's really nothing to celebrate in a relatively young man getting shot to death, even if it's in the process of the robbery. Everyone makes a shitty choice now and then.. some of those turn out shittier than others. This one was really shitty. But, whether or not the shooting was justified, I don't think the inevitable celebratory remarks about this man's death are.
I agree with you--and I am all for full rehabilitation for all criminals that can be rehabilitated---, but the thing is, this was self defense on the part of the veteran. The veteran had reason to believe the robber was armed and dangerous, and acted according to his military training. While I abhor the loss of life, I will not condemn the veteran for acting within the law and to safeguard himself.

That said, I don't see why he couldn't have aimed a bit more carefully and disabled the robber rather than killed him. Surely with an SKS it can't be that hard, if it's set to single-fire mode.

This vet got lucky.

Why?

It could have been his neighbour, having noticed that his house had been ransacked, coming through that door. As I said, though, he got lucky - it wasn't.

He didn't actually know what the robber looked like and immediately assumed that the guy coming in was the suspect.

Incidently, an SKS is almost nothing like an AK47. No idea who put that in the story.

That's kind of like saying "he owned a vintage M1 Garand, kind of close to an M16".


Oh and this kind of makes me sad. I don't really like your law in the US of "if they're in your house, go for it, kill 'em". Waste of lives, to be fair, because you should have Home Contents Insurance for that kind of eventuality, rather than semi-automatic rifles.

To take such a legalistic approach is inhuman. It's a matter of honour and respect as much as anything else, and, in any case, I daresay you'd be doing a favour purging it of one more degenerate.

That said, I don't see why he couldn't have aimed a bit more carefully and disabled the robber rather than killed him. Surely with an SKS it can't be that hard, if it's set to single-fire mode.

1. Shooting to wound (say in an arm, or leg) is much more difficult. It's a smaller, more mobile target.

2. A shot like that is less likely to incapacitate your target, meaning return fire may be immenient.

3. It takes extra time to aim the shot, time you may not have.

I'm all for rehabilitation too, if the criminal in question can be rehabilitated. Personally I don't think many can. Doesn't mean we should "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" though.

This situtation is moderately unfortunate, but I won't feel sorry for the thief and I won't condemn the soldier for what happened.

*rest of the post*
Fair enough, although I don't really agree, especially with the "he followed his military training" bit. He's not in the military any more. He's a civilian. Two different walks of life.
Surely with an SKS it can't be that hard, if it's set to single-fire mode.
With an SKS it's not an "if" choice - it's basically the Soviet Union's version of an M1 Garand, with a 10rd. clip instead of an 8rd. clip and a different calibre of rounds (7.62x51 WP if I recall correctly).

It has about as much to do with an AK47 as a Lee-Enfield has to do with an SA80A2.

To take such a legalistic approach is inhuman. It's a matter of honour and respect as much as anything else, and, in any case, I daresay you'd be doing a favour purging it of one more degenerate.
The law is exactly the reason that we don't act like animals. I don't see why laws on shooting people who come into your house should be laxer than those of anything else, and you certainly seem to be a supporter of the rule of law in many other areas.

But let's not get this off-topic with a little bitch at each other, eh?

Fair enough, although I don't really agree, especially with the "he followed his military training" bit. He's not in the military any more. He's a civilian. Two different walks of life.
I meant that he reacted instinctively using that training to defend himself.


With an SKS it's not an "if" choice - it's basically the Soviet Union's version of an M1 Garand, with a 10rd. clip instead of an 8rd. clip and a different calibre of rounds (7.62x51 WP if I recall correctly).

It has about as much to do with an AK47 as a Lee-Enfield has to do with an SA80A2.
Oh. Whoops. My mistake. Shows what I know about firearms...

I meant that he reacted instinctively using that training to defend himself.
Aye, fair enough, and after training for a fair while, it's probably extremely difficult to exclude it from life in general.
Oh. Whoops. My mistake. Shows what I know about firearms...
To be fair, the news story completely cocked up on this one, and if you were going on what they were saying, I can hardly blame you for making a mistake ;)

The homowner knew this man was a criminal. He knew that he was probably armed.

explain how

This vet got lucky.

Why?

It could have been his neighbour, having noticed that his house had been ransacked, coming through that door. As I said, though, he got lucky - it wasn't.

He didn't actually know what the robber looked like and immediately assumed that the guy coming in was the suspect.

precisely. and being lucky while committing homicide isn't something we should allow to count as a defense. the crazy fucker opened fire on an unarmed guy outside his house with no warning. i want him locked up for my own safety.

The law is exactly the reason that we don't act like animals. I don't see why laws on shooting people who come into your house should be laxer than those of anything else, and you certainly seem to be a supporter of the rule of law in many other areas.

But let's not get this off-topic with a little bitch at each other, eh?

However, in this case, the law is nonsensical. Said burgler would have received a relatively minor sentence in prison, after which, upon release, all probabality suggests that he would then consistently reoffend, thus draining the resources of society. Why then fashion a law that protects such evidently degenerate individuals?

Incidentally, to he who suggested that the veteran may have shot his neighbour by accident; surely, if he could see sufficiently well to target the criminal's stomach, he could equally well discern that it was not his neighbour?

Good on the Iraq veteran. If people demonstrate contempt for social conventions and laws, they have no right to then look to them for protection.

I believe social convention, and army training, places an obligation on the shooter to establish that the person is indeed a danger before firing. It seems very likely that, upon being called out by a man with a gun, the thief would have surrendered or ran.

Since the shooter also violated social conventions, we can absolve the parents of the slain man for retaliating in kind, correct?

EDIT: Hell, by your logic, I can place a roadside bomb to stop the jerk speeding by my house.

Aye, fair enough, and after training for a fair while, it's probably extremely difficult to exclude it from life in general.
More than likely, though I suppose I cannot know for certain as I have never had military training, nor am I interested in such training.

To be fair, the news story completely cocked up on this one, and if you were going on what they were saying, I can hardly blame you for making a mistake ;)

Yes, that would be where I was judging from...but then I also had this odd scenario in my mind of this veteran being a superb shooter who could fire a shot to the shoulder, knee, and hand with the gun in it in quick succesion to take the robber down without killing him, which is probably ridiculous.

Hell, by your logic, I can place a roadside bomb to stop the jerk speeding by my house.

that'll teach those kids to drive so fast through a school zone!

However, in this case, the law is nonsensical. Said burgler would have received a relatively minor sentence in prison, after which, upon release, all probabality suggests that he would then consistently reoffend, thus draining the resources of society. Why then fashion a law that protects such evidently degenerate individuals?

Incidentally, to he who suggested that the veteran may have shot his neighbour by accident; surely, if he could see sufficiently well to target the criminal's stomach, he could equally well discern that it was not his neighbour?
The Burglar obviously thought the law nonsensical, but that doesn't give him a trump card over the law either.

However, in this case, the law is nonsensical. Said burgler would have received a relatively minor sentence in prison, after which, upon release, all probabality suggests that he would then consistently reoffend, thus draining the resources of society. Why then fashion a law that protects such evidently degenerate individuals?

Simple human decency? The basic rights all sentient beings possess? How about trying to rehabilitate the criminal, to discern the cause of his criminal activities and correct it rather than just disposing of his life? How many potentially brilliant scientists have we lost because their families were too poor to ensure they could have a decent educated and they were forced to steal to live, only to end up imprisoned or shot? How many potentially brilliant doctors? Engineers? Teachers? Professors? And so on and so forth.

You can't simply toss away human life as if it were naught but a crumpled piece of paper. I know it's hard for someone as racist and ignorant of humanity as you are to understand, but it needs to be said nonetheless.

I believe social convention, and army training, places an obligation on the shooter to establish that the person is indeed a danger before firing. It seems very likely that, upon being called out by a man with a gun, the thief would have surrendered or ran.

Since the shooter also violated social conventions, we can absolve the parents of the slain man for retaliating in kind, correct?

EDIT: Hell, by your logic, I can place a roadside bomb to stop the jerk speeding by my house.

Please do that:)

That really would make my day.

Incidentally, would you address a burglar as follows; "My dear fellow, do you constitute a danger to me? Do you think I would be justified in shooting you?" ? No. However allruing such a simple proposition as that you make above is, it is unfeasible in practice.

In regard to the parents of the degenerate; no. Their son committed the first offence, and frankly got everything he deserved.

Simple human decency? The basic rights all sentient beings possess? How about trying to rehabilitate the criminal, to discern the cause of his criminal activities and correct it rather than just disposing of his life? How many potentially brilliant scientists have we lost because their families were too poor to ensure they could have a decent educated and they were forced to steal to live, only to end up imprisoned or shot? How many potentially brilliant doctors? Engineers? Teachers? Professors? And so on and so forth.

You can't simply toss away human life as if it were naught but a crumpled piece of paper. I know it's hard for someone as racist and ignorant of humanity as you are to understand, but it needs to be said nonetheless.

Diddums. How many people from such backgrounds have contrived, by hard work, thrift and prudence, to make something of themselves? You insult the poor as universally incompetant in contending that, when born into penury and deprivation, they are unable to lift themselves from it.

Incidentally, why can't I dispose of a human life, if said life is one that has not, and, probability suggests, will not, contribute anything? Not only would it be beneficial to society, but it would set a precedent.

that'll teach those kids to drive so fast through a school zone!

I will make sure that I display a sign:

"Disobedience of social conventions will result in vaporization"

The Burglar obviously thought the law nonsensical, but that doesn't give him a trump card over the law either.

No, but neither the house, nor the proprietor, had broken the law originally to merit the removal of the law's protection.

Incidentally, would you address a burglar as follows; "My dear fellow, do you constitute a danger to me? Do you think I would be justified in shooting you?" ? No. However allruing such a simple proposition as that you make above is, it is unfeasible in practice.

I would raise my weapon and demand that they identify themselves, just as this individual's training probably required.

In regard to the parents of the degenerate; no. Their son committed the first offence, and frankly got everything he deserved.

Why would the first offense absolve the second offense?

I would raise my weapon and demand that they identify themselves, just as this individual's training probably required.



Why would the first offense absolve the second offense?

However, can you cite any evidence for the training of the marine? If not, please do not make assumptions.:) In any case, you're weak. If said criminal has a weapon, and has not seen you, what then precludes them from shooting you as you ask for a formal introduction?

The first offence demonstrates a contempt for both the law, and society. Hence, the protection of both is removed from the criminal. Quite simple really.

Diddums. How many people from such backgrounds have contrived, by hard work, thrift and prudence, to make something of themselves? You insult the poor as universally incompetant in contending that, when born into penury and deprivation, they are unable to lift themselves from it.
Oh please. You know all too well that sometimes a poor person no matter how hard they work cannot lift themselves up because they lack the necessary education and the funding to achieve it, precisely because of people like you who would refuse all the equal opportunity they deserve. Now, if they had the opportunity, they would obviously be able to rise up, but that would eliminate one of the largest reasons for crime, and you wouldn't want that becuase it would mean you couldn't indulge in your wanking via killing someone.

Incidentally, why can't I dispose of a human life, if said life is one that has not, and, probability suggests, will not, contribute anything? Not only would it be beneficial to society, but it would set a precedent.
Because they deserve the right to live regardless of what they would contribute to "society." Fuck society if that's your only reason for letting anyone live. They are sentient beings and as such they have basic human rights. You do not have the right to deprive someone of their life because they would not contribute to your society, especially with your stupid reasoning for how one can contribute. You declare so many unable to contribute to society but you also refuse to give them the means to be able to do so. In other words, you condemn them because you enjoy killing. You are a sadistic and cruel man,

Luckily for you, I believe that no one is beyond redemption, so I can only hope that at some point we will finally convince you to change your racist, inhuman ways and become a sensible person.

However, can you cite any evidence for the training of the marine? If not, please do not make assumptions.:) In any case, you're weak. If said criminal has a weapon, and has not seen you, what then precludes them from shooting you as you ask for a formal introduction?

This is what I understand from the interview of the soldier charged in the Haditha case, I will see if I can source it. If this individual is firing from an unseen location, then chances are he has already found himself in a particularly advantageous situation.

The first offence demonstrates a contempt for both the law, and society. Hence, the protection of both is removed from the criminal. Quite simple really.

So does the second, if you take my opinion on social convention.

Oh please. You know all too well that sometimes a poor person no matter how hard they work cannot lift themselves up because they lack the necessary education and the funding to achieve it, precisely because of people like you who would refuse all the equal opportunity they deserve. Now, if they had the opportunity, they would obviously be able to rise up, but that would eliminate one of the largest reasons for crime, and you wouldn't want that becuase it would mean you couldn't indulge in your wanking via killing someone.

Because they deserve the right to live regardless of what they would contribute to "society." Fuck society if that's your only reason for letting anyone live. They are sentient beings and as such they have basic human rights. You do not have the right to deprive someone of their life because they would not contribute to your society, especially with your stupid reasoning for how one can contribute. You declare so many unable to contribute to society but you also refuse to give them the means to be able to do so. In other words, you condemn them because you enjoy killing. You are a sadistic and cruel man,

Luckily for you, I believe that no one is beyond redemption, so I can only hope that at some point we will finally convince you to change your racist, inhuman ways and become a sensible person.


Firstly, don't bring race into this. TBC is not racist, but frankly, can't be arsed to explain why to the likes of you.

Secondly, I am sensible, unfortunately, I also have, in a political sense, testes and a spine. Grow some and you'll agree. In any case, I would bet money I have better qualifications than you, and will earn more in later life, despite my not being from a priveliged background.:)

Actually, the above is terribly hypocritical of me. Personalising debate, as you began, is terribly bad form, and a little ignorant.

Now then;

Have I stated that I object to equal oppurtunities? No, nor could it be inferred from my post but by the most tenuous of reasoning.

Secondly, do you geuinely believe, as you do infer, that all criminals are simply the result of society, and have all homogenously been denied every opportunity at every turn? Some have been born into geuinely impossible situations; others merely into the same that others, such as Richard Branson, contrived to work out of. Social inequalities do not exculpate criminals.

Lastly, I disagree. Society cannot afford to drag along criminals, since, oddly, we do not inhabit a utopia wherin work is not a necessity. Those who elect not to contribute, yet who rain society's resources, have no place therein.

Incidentally, how does my advocating capital punishment render me cruel? By that logic you label millions singularly cruel and sadistic.... well done.

Because it's legal for the homeowner to cap you ('http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_burglarshot_070504/')



Hopefully, the (29 and still living at home?) dead guy never had a chance to reproduce.

Honestly, burglarizing is one thing, stealing weapons is another thing, but coming back in a bit after you've ransacked the place is just completely stupid.

Maybe he should have checked to see if the homeowner was home (maybe watch from across the street) before he waltzed into a hail of gunfire.
Another happy ending to a potential tragedy. Gun control really is BRASS.

This is what I understand from the interview of the soldier charged in the Haditha case, I will see if I can source it. If this individual is firing from an unseen location, then chances are he has already found himself in a particularly advantageous situation.



So does the second, if you take my opinion on social convention.

I suppose it's simply a divergence of assumptions then; you believe revenge has no place in society, I believe it is justified.

Firstly, don't bring race into this. TBC is not racist, but frankly, can't be arsed to explain why to the likes of you.
Of course you can't, despite how much people have proven it over the time you've been here in all those immigration threads, your precious "British society" and all that, because you are racist.

Secondly, I am sensible, unfortunately, I also have, in a political sense, testes and a spine. Grow some and you'll agree.
I'm sorry, what exactly is this supposed to mean? I'm honestly confused.
In any case, I would bet money I have better qualifications than you, and will earn more in later life, despite my not being from a priveliged background.:)
Possibly, but possibly not. Without comparing our educational achievements, we cannot say, and since neither one of us is likely to believe the other about their respective educational achievements, it is irrelevant.

Actually, the above is terribly hypocritical of me. Personalising debate, as you began, is terribly bad form, and a little ignorant.

So it is. I allowed my dislike of people like you to colour my argument. I apologize for that.

Now then;

Have I stated that I object to equal oppurtunities? No, nor could it be inferred from my post but by the most tenuous of reasoning.
I'm pretty sure you've stated as such in the past, dismissing it as some form of communistic or socialist nonsense, but I may be mistaken. Correct me on this: what is your position on ensuring equal opportunity for all?


Secondly, do you geuinely believe, as you do infer, that all criminals are simply the result of society, and have all homogenously been denied every opportunity at every turn? Some have been born into geuinely impossible situations; others merely into the same that others, such as Richard Branson, contrived to work out of. Social inequalities do not exculpate criminals.

No, I don't believe all criminals are the result of society nor did I infer it. I specifically stated one of the major causes of criminal activity, not the sole cause. Obviously there are a great deal of other problems, such as mental illnesses, parental abuse, and so on and so forth. On that same token, I believe that all can be rehabilitated, or at least most. Those that cannot at this time, such as sociopaths, should be confined until such time we can cure the problem that causes sociopathy and allow them to be productive members of society, or at least nice individuals to be around.

Of course, all of this depends on proof of criminal activity. Accusations of criminal activity do not a criminal make. I am a firm believer in the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, so I will never write off anyone.

Lastly, I disagree. Society cannot afford to drag along criminals, since, oddly, we do not inhabit a utopia wherin work is not a necessity. Those who elect not to contribute, yet who rain society's resources, have no place therein.

So we just kill them all? I disagree completely. There are plenty of ways to allow them to contribute without just killing them, along with not removing their basic human rights. I have outlined such ways, like rehabilitation.


Incidentally, how does my advocating capital punishment render me cruel? By that logic you label millions singularly cruel and sadistic.... well done.
Of course it makes you sadistic and cruel. You are ending a sentient life. Life itself is extremely rare and precious, and sentient life far more so. It should be protected because of that rarity, because once it is gone, it is gone. There is no afterlife, no nothing beyond to protect it, and as such we cannot simply destroy sentient life when it pleases us. To do so is to act like animals, and as sentient beings we have the capability of doing otherwise simply by being able to conceive of such alternatives.

So do I have a problem with condemning all those who believe in capital punishment as sadistic and cruel? Absolutely not.

Yay! Death!

I can hear the fapping sounds already...

Hmm... Maybe I should post every random little tidbit of news I come across? "Man got his car stolen"? Nah, nobody died needlessly in that, so it wouldn't be juicy enough to get the blood pumping and the testosterone up.

This vet got lucky.

Why?

It could have been his neighbour, having noticed that his house had been ransacked, coming through that door. As I said, though, he got lucky - it wasn't.

He didn't actually know what the robber looked like and immediately assumed that the guy coming in was the suspect.

Absolutely!

This guy is a vet, yet extremely careless. It could have cost an innocent persons life, as far as I can tell from this story.

Yes and if we shot more of them we'd have a lot less crime I am betting.

Love it. How most crime stories should end--dead criminal!

Agreed. *Does a Clinton-inauguration dance*

Incidentally, to he who suggested that the veteran may have shot his neighbour by accident; surely, if he could see sufficiently well to target the criminal's stomach, he could equally well discern that it was not his neighbour?

only if we assume the crazed lunatic opening fire on people outside his house with no warning is able to recognize other human beings. but give his status as a crazed lunatic that fucking shoots unarmed people for being outside his house, i think we can say that this faculty may not be up to the challenge anymore.

OMG the n00b got shot to death lolz. People getting killed r00lz!

:rolleyes:

Pies could have prevented this. *nod*

I would raise my weapon and demand that they identify themselves, just as this individual's training probably required.

well, things may have changed recently in the armed forces

Oh deary me. A criminal got shot whilst violating the property of another, having already done so once before. My, how I feel for the poor fellow. :rolleyes:

Good on the Iraq veteran. If people demonstrate contempt for social conventions and laws, they have no right to then look to them for protection.

Yup. Why should we put our life on the to make sure law-breakers who have contemp for the law get protected by it? If you look at Wyatt Earp's life he he protected criminals, yet the Liberals still got angry with him. He saved a person who shot a sheriff in the groin for kicks from being lynched, adn saw that he got a fair trial. But yet after using his gun to knock-out a ARMED druckard he got fired from Dodge, and after the O.K. Corral in Tombstone he was tried for murder. Ridiculas isn't it?

Simple human decency? The basic rights all sentient beings possess? How about trying to rehabilitate the criminal, to discern the cause of his criminal activities and correct it rather than just disposing of his life? How many potentially brilliant scientists have we lost because their families were too poor to ensure they could have a decent educated and they were forced to steal to live, only to end up imprisoned or shot? How many potentially brilliant doctors? Engineers? Teachers? Professors? And so on and so forth.

You can't simply toss away human life as if it were naught but a crumpled piece of paper. I know it's hard for someone as racist and ignorant of humanity as you are to understand, but it needs to be said nonetheless.

First-off this guy didn't have to steal to live, he could get a job, and second he stole GUNS, not money. And he obviously used what money he had to buy pot. Screw rehabilitation.

I suppose it's simply a divergence of assumptions then; you believe revenge has no place in society, I believe it is justified.

So now this is not self-defense, but revenge?

You actually think that shooting someone to death is appropriate revenge for stealing a gun?

Hopefully the murderer is charged. It wasn't self defense. If he had seen the robber carrying a gun, then yes. He stood there and waited for him to come through the door and then shot him. Premeditated murder.
Please, at worst if this goes to court he is getting voluntary manslaughter. In order to prove murder one you need to prove premeditation and that the crime was committed in a calm collected manner. Premeditation is shot because he grabbed the SKS and then called the cops, only to shoot the burglar as he was entering the back door, and calm and collected is shot also because if someone broke into your house I doubt you would be thinking clearly either.
Ohh and "Premeditated Murder" is rationally considering how to kill a person and then planning it out, in order to either be more successfull, and/or to escape capture. This man did nothing of the sort.
Not to poke unnecessary holes in your arguement, but you can prove premeditation even if seconds passed between forming the intent to kill and the actual actions. Though like I mentioned, since he was already holding the assault rifle premeditation isn't relevent here.
This vet got lucky.

Why?

It could have been his neighbour, having noticed that his house had been ransacked, coming through that door. As I said, though, he got lucky - it wasn't.

He didn't actually know what the robber looked like and immediately assumed that the guy coming in was the suspect.

Right, because if I think one of my neighbor's houses was broken into I'm definitely walking in there through the back door. At that point it looks more like I'm trying to sneak in to grab a little more than trying to inspect the damage and see if there is anything I can do to help. If he was entering the front door, then this arguement would be a very valid one.

Life itself is extremely rare

Not on this planet.

Doesn't anyone else think it a little off that the guy, obviously a drug user/dealer, STOLE TWO ASSAULT RIFLES!?! :eek:

Wake the hell up! He either intended to use them himself (Yay massacre!) or more likely, sell them (Yay massacre!). Either way, this was one of those cases were legally acquired guns were stolen by a criminal.

Fair enough, although I don't really agree, especially with the "he followed his military training" bit. He's not in the military any more. He's a civilian. Two different walks of life.

With an SKS it's not an "if" choice - it's basically the Soviet Union's version of an M1 Garand, with a 10rd. clip instead of an 8rd. clip and a different calibre of rounds (7.62x51 WP if I recall correctly).

It has about as much to do with an AK47 as a Lee-Enfield has to do with an SA80A2.


An SKS uses 7.62x39mm ammo (7.62x51mm ammo is the NATO round similar to .308), and 7.62x54mm ammo is what the Mosin Nagant and the Dragunov sniper rifle uses.

How did he know it was the burglar and not some random person?

Also:

"burglarized"

Lawl.

How did he know it was the burglar and not some random person?

magic, i assume

How did he know it was the burglar and not some random person?

Also:

"burglarized"

Lawl.

If the guy is walking in the back door, and the house was just burglarized, I'd jump to that conclusion too.

magic, i assume

Oh, actually, I've got it.

It must be something to do with how all soldiers fire only at the enemy and never make mistakes, or kill civilians. I imagine it carries on for veterans as well.

I agree with you--and I am all for full rehabilitation for all criminals that can be rehabilitated---, but the thing is, this was self defense on the part of the veteran. The veteran had reason to believe the robber was armed and dangerous, and acted according to his military training. While I abhor the loss of life, I will not condemn the veteran for acting within the law and to safeguard himself.

That said, I don't see why he couldn't have aimed a bit more carefully and disabled the robber rather than killed him. Surely with an SKS it can't be that hard, if it's set to single-fire mode.

Oh, I agree completely. One has the right to defend themselves, and lethal force can certainly be justified. I'm just saying, there are going to be a lot of posts in this thread celebrating this guy's death.. and we don't even know anything about him. I mean, has anyone even thought of the poor guy's mother?

Not on this planet.
I was speaking in terms of the universe.
Oh, I agree completely. One has the right to defend themselves, and lethal force can certainly be justified. I'm just saying, there are going to be a lot of posts in this thread celebrating this guy's death.. and we don't even know anything about him. I mean, has anyone even thought of the poor guy's mother?
I know...it's quite sickening. As I said to TBC, I abhor any and all loss of sentient life, especially life lost in this manner. While I defend the right to defend oneself...I still would have liked a different resolution to this situation, be it the robber simply injured rather than killed, or frightened off, or otherwise survives while still being caught.

I was speaking in terms of the universe.

I know...it's quite sickening. As I said to TBC, I abhor any and all loss of sentient life, especially life lost in this manner. While I defend the right to defend oneself...I still would have liked a different resolution to this situation, be it the robber simply injured rather than killed, or frightened off, or otherwise survives while still being caught.

Or even glued naked to an exercise bike. :)

Or even glued naked to an exercise bike. :)
That would be painful, both physically and emotionally, but still preferable to death, I would say.

That would be painful, both physically and emotionally....

It's not so bad. :)

Not that I'm trying to give criminals a free ride, but there's really nothing to celebrate in a relatively young man getting shot to death, even if it's in the process of the robbery. Everyone makes a shitty choice now and then.. some of those turn out shittier than others. This one was really shitty. But, whether or not the shooting was justified, I don't think the inevitable celebratory remarks about this man's death are.

Not going to celebrate here, but it seems the person made the logical conclusions. His guns were missing, and it seemed the robber was coming back. Put two and two together, and the conclusion is most likely an armed robber, probably now much more dangerous.

I was speaking in terms of the universe.

In terms of the universe, what isn't rare? Empty space?

An SKS uses 7.62x39mm ammo (7.62x51mm ammo is the NATO round similar to .308), and 7.62x54mm ammo is what the Mosin Nagant and the Dragunov sniper rifle uses.
7.62x39 it is.

It still doesn't change it not actually being very much like an AK47 in that it isn't really an assault rifle, it isn't selective-fire, you can't fire it fully automatic, and its carries 3 times less ammunition.

However, can you cite any evidence for the training of the marine? If not, please do not make assumptions.:) In any case, you're weak. If said criminal has a weapon, and has not seen you, what then precludes them from shooting you as you ask for a formal introduction?
Hypothetical situation that turned out to be true - what if actually the criminal isn't armed?

Oh no, you've just shot someone who could have been anyone!

Jail and/or the death penalty as you advocate it for you, sonny boy!
The first offence demonstrates a contempt for both the law, and society. Hence, the protection of both is removed from the criminal. Quite simple really.
Oh right, because two wrongs make a right nowadays?

And the lesson:

Dont have guns and this shit wont happen, again and again (and repeat).

It's like a National Arms race, what the fuck kind of person needs an assault rifle. Short of being assaulted by 15 big ass fuck off bears i cant see it EVER being useful other than for crime or intimidation. Sometimes i just cant fathom why the states seems to be so crazy about guns. You wouldn't need them to protect yourself if every other fucker didn't have one *rant!*

Terrible, terrible incident.

Person, who has been in war, now thinks himself judge when people may live and die. Shooting at somebody for robbery?!, where has his mind gone. And from that article it appears that there has not been no self defence situation. Robber returned to the place of crime (which may be stupid) and got killed.

I hope the murderer gets lifetime sentence for murder.

it appears that there has not been no self defence situation.

...Assuming I understand what "there has not been no" means, I think I disagree with you.

Dont have guns and this shit wont happen, again and again (and repeat).


EUREKA!

Now that you have worked out the way forward, perhaps you can tell us how this is to be accomplished.

Person, who has been in war, now thinks himself judge when people may live and die. Shooting at somebody for robbery?!,

How do you determine if a home invader is just there for the TV, and the loose cash, or if he is there to kill/rape/main the inhabitants of the home?

EUREKA!

Now that you have worked out the way forward, perhaps you can tell us how this is to be accomplished.
In the US?

The same way that the veteran knew it was a robber - magic.

magic.

That's a more intelligent, practical, and comprehensive answer than any of the gun control freaks have come up with.

That's a more intelligent, practical, and comprehensive answer than any of the gun control freaks have come up with.
Well I'm in favour of absolutely no guns at all myself, but to be honest, it's not going to happen.

Well I'm in favour of absolutely no guns at all myself, but to be honest, it's not going to happen.

How old would I have to be to own a crossbow? I've always wanted one, they just look cool.

[...] noticed that guns were missing.

He grabbed his SKS rifle [...]
*blinks* Must have been a fairly awful thief.

Seriously, though... I would be interested to learn what would make him decide that the first person he saw approaching his door would be the burglar. Most interested: I could try it on a few double-glazing salesmen :/.

How old would I have to be to own a crossbow? I've always wanted one, they just look cool.
It varies as to where you live (well, naturally). Wikipedia has an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_on_crossbows) on it.

7.62x39 it is.

It still doesn't change it not actually being very much like an AK47 in that it isn't really an assault rifle, it isn't selective-fire, you can't fire it fully automatic, and its carries 3 times less ammunition.

I know, I was just being a good doobie, and giving the correct caliber. :D

And the lesson:

Dont have guns and this shit wont happen, again and again (and repeat).

It's like a National Arms race, what the fuck kind of person needs an assault rifle. Short of being assaulted by 15 big ass fuck off bears i cant see it EVER being useful other than for crime or intimidation. Sometimes i just cant fathom why the states seems to be so crazy about guns. You wouldn't need them to protect yourself if every other fucker didn't have one *rant!*

Not everyone that has a firearm, has one for self defense. I have one for target shooting. Here's a picture of it (yes, I'm posting a pic of it AGAIN): http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

Looking at the CMP's rulebook for a service rifle match, my rifle should work just fine (even though it only has a 16" barrel), once I get a sling.

*blinks* Must have been a fairly awful thief.

Seriously, though... I would be interested to learn what would make him decide that the first person he saw approaching his door would be the burglar. Most interested: I could try it on a few double-glazing salesmen :/.


Well, an SKS isn't a real expensive rifle (the highest price I've seen for a surplus SKS is around $150), and it's a wood stocked rifle as well. So, I could possibly understand why the thief didn't steal it (at least, not yet).

Also keep in mind, the suspected thief was approaching the back door of the residence. I know if I'd had my house ransacked and some of my firearms stolen, and saw someone approaching my house from a direction they shouldn't be, I'd probably figure they were the theif (armed with my stolen firearms), returning for seconds. Would I shoot at that point? I don't know, and I hope I never have to find out (although if the theif stole MY firearm, I'd know he was also a master locksmith, as I have 3 locks separating my firearms from being used, not including the locks on the doors of my residence).

I have more sympathy for the burglar than the home owner in this case.

I have more sympathy for the burglar than the home owner in this case.

I really have to ask: Why?

The burglar chose to initiate the events that led to his death. He damaged and stole another person's property, took away the loot, then came back for more.

He terrorized another human being by his actions. And the end result is going to haunt the home owner for the rest of his life.

All the home owner did was protect his own life from a criminal he had every reason to believe was armed and dangerous. He will have to live with his actions. The burglar doesn't.

I'm completely for gun control, and against violence. I still think that the homeowner did the right thing here. He had good reason to believe that it was the thief and that the thief was armed with lethal weapons. It's unfortunate that the wounds were fatal, but I think the intent was self-defence.

The home owner was in the right. He believed the man to be a threat, which he was, and acted in the best interests of his own safety. However, I can only imagine how many guns this guy had for a burgler to make more than one trip, and still have some left over to get shot with.

At least there should be a limit on how many guns one man can own.

He believed the man to be a threat
^unreasonably

which he was

wasn't

and acted in the best interests of his own safety

by killing an unarmed dude without warning that wasn't even inside his house

by killing an unarmed dude without warning that wasn't even inside his house

The man broke into his house and stole the owner's firearms. This led him to believe the intruder was armed. What did you want the guy to do? Discuss it like gentlemen?

"Excuse me sir, but you are tresspassing on my property. Please relinquish anything you have stolen, and maybe we can disguss a means to solve your impoverished needs together."

This kind of thing is always a tough call in some respects. How is one life measured against another life?

If the veteran had held off firing, he could have ended up dead. The criminal may or may not have gotten away. If he had gotten away, he'd use the guns he stole to do who knows what sorts of crime. If he hadn't gotten away, he'd be put through a prison system that may or may not punish him or rehabilitate him correctly. Meanwhile, the veteran who did nothing wrong and sacrificed his life to save that of the criminal is still dead.

The veteran kills him and he's the bad guy even though we have no idea how many lives that veteran saved by not allowing that man back onto the streets and back into the world.

It sucks that the criminal's life was to the point he had to resort to that sort of thing, but there was likely little that could have been done for him with our current system. Maybe he could have been the next scientist with a cure for AIDS or Cancer, but if he was, the odds were that light was put out long before the veteran met up with him.

The man broke into his house and stole the owner's firearms. This led him to believe the intruder was armed. What did you want the guy to do? Discuss it like gentlemen?

you are attributing knowledge to the shooter that he could not have had. what he knew was that somebody broke into his house. he then assumed that the next person he saw was the same somebody. in this case it appears he was right. but he was right purely through luck, not through rational epistemic justification. from the standpoint of reason, the crazy fucker opened fire on some random dude with no warning or moral justification.

and even assuming (contrary to fact) that he did have reason to believe that the next person he saw was both armed and the robber, he had no reason to believe that violence against him was intended or that said armed dude knew he was even there. you do not get to use preemptive deadly force in that situation.

you are attributing knowledge to the shooter that he could not have had. what he knew was that somebody broke into his house. he then assumed that the next person he saw was the same somebody. in this case it appears he was right. but he was right purely through luck, not through rational epistemic justification. from the standpoint of reason, the crazy fucker opened fire on some random dude with no warning or moral justification.

and even assuming (contrary to fact) that he did have reason to believe that the next person he saw was both armed and the robber, he had no reason to believe that violence against him was intended or that said armed dude knew he was even there. you do not get to use preemptive deadly force in that situation.

You believe that rational behavior is at all possible when there is a stranger in your house? Hindsight is 20/20, and though it may have been luck, I too would have shot at some "random dude" in my house because he shouldn't be there and in all probability he's there with malintent.

You can criticize his actions all you want, but it shows he was right. Rather than worrying about what could have happened we see what did happen.

Your suggestion as to what he should have done?

You believe that rational behavior is at all possible when there is a stranger in your house? Hindsight is 20/20, and though it may have been luck, I too would have shot at some "random dude" in my house because he shouldn't be there and in all probability he's there with malintent.

“While on the phone with 911, he sees the suspect approaching his back door,” Johnson said. “Because he believes the man now is armed with his stolen weapons, Mr. Bollinger fires at him three times.”

You can criticize his actions all you want, but it shows he was right.

what the fuck kind of nonsense is this?

Your suggestion as to what he should have done?

draw his weapon and tell the guy outside his house to state his business, keep his hands open and visible, and to stay put until the cops arrived?

draw his weapon and tell the guy outside his house to state his business, keep his hands open and visible, and to stay put until the cops arrived?

What kind of nonsense are you spouting off. You quoted it yourself, if you are just robbed and you see someone walking towards back door what are you gonna think? Also, as far as the vet knew, the guy was armed. If he spoke, he would give away his position and exposed himself. Now while I don't know what the house was made of, I feel I can make a safe guess that nothing would deflect any shot bullet since he was near a window.

And again, if this is taken to court, at most this guy is given a voluntary manslaughter charge. More than likely nothing is happening because the trial would be taking place in Georgia, so a jury of his peers will more than likely find him not guilty.

what the fuck kind of nonsense is this?

Nonsense? He shot a home invader who could have been armed. It wasn't his son, or wife, or neighbor. It was a potentially armed criminal who was breaking the law.

draw his weapon and tell the guy outside his house to state his business, keep his hands open and visible, and to stay put until the cops arrived?

Risky.

The man is not a cop, he was never trained to deal with such a situation. He was trained to shoot first and ask questions later. Judge him all you want, but the courts will find him innocent of all charges, and he will probably be praised given the culture in Georgia.

At least there should be a limit on how many guns one man can own.


Why? What would you hope to accomplish by limiting the quantity of firearms a person can own?

The man is not a cop, he was never trained to deal with such a situation. He was trained to shoot first and ask questions later. Judge him all you want, but the courts will find him innocent of all charges, and he will probably be praised given the culture in Georgia.

Um....this man wasn't some trenches grunt. He was a fucking army captain, an officer.

Um....this man wasn't some trenches grunt. He was a fucking army captain, an officer.

And I'm pretty sure they train you to not give your enemy a chance when you are pretty certain they will do you harm if given a chance. I haven't been through actual training so this is just a guess.

Um....this man wasn't some trenches grunt. He was a fucking army captain, an officer.

Unless he was the captain of a platoon of MPs then I don't see how it would be much different. He would know how to lead his troops, not take prisoners in a close quarters civilian situation.

draw his weapon and tell the guy outside his house to state his business, keep his hands open and visible, and to stay put until the cops arrived?
Right, and take the risk that the idiot who just robbed you and coming back for more might decide to start a shoot-out in your backyard?

Robber gets no sympathy if he's going to be stupid on the job, and even so a violation of someone else's rights gets no 'pass' because he had a rough childhood or some crap.

What kind of nonsense are you spouting off. You quoted it yourself, if you are just robbed and you see someone walking towards back door what are you gonna think? Also, as far as the vet knew, the guy was armed. If he spoke, he would give away his position and exposed himself. Now while I don't know what the house was made of, I feel I can make a safe guess that nothing would deflect any shot bullet since he was near a window.

He made two major assumptions: 1) That this was the individual who robbed his house, 2) That this individual was both armed and a danger. He then used deadly force without attempting to affirm either of these assumptions.

This is quite similar to the actions taken by the soldiers who are being court martialed over the Haditha incident. The only thing that separates the two is that this man had the good fortune of shooting the right person.

Right, and take the risk that the idiot who just robbed you and coming back for more might decide to start a shoot-out in your backyard?

you don't get to use deadly force if you aren't attacked. hell, you don't get to use deadly force even if you are, except in some very restricted cases. the guy he shot was unarmed, outside, and didn't even know he was there. this ain't fucking rocket science.

We don't know why he made the assumptions; he might very well have seen the man carrying what looked like a weapon. The article is very vague in the actual incident.

you don't get to use deadly force if you aren't attacked. hell, you don't get to use deadly force even if you are, except in some very restricted cases. the guy he shot was unarmed, outside, and didn't even know he was there. this ain't fucking rocket science.

Wrong. If you feel your life is threatened, you have every right to defend yourself, especially when you're in your own home.

He made two major assumptions: 1) That this was the individual who robbed his house, 2) That this individual was both armed and a danger. He then used deadly force without attempting to affirm either of these assumptions.

This is quite similar to the actions taken by the soldiers who are being court martialed over the Haditha incident. The only thing that separates the two is that this man had the good fortune of shooting the right person.

Ok, so how should he have verified his assumptions without giving himself away?

If nothing else, I just want to know if everyone agrees that even if it wasn't the burglar entering through the back door, wouldn't that have been a bad move? Then I'll be more than happy to leave that issue behind.

Ok, so how should he have verified his assumptions without giving himself away?

This man is presumably a well trained soldier who dropped the other man with a short burst of fire with good accuracy and from a concealed location.

What sort of risk do you really think he would have endured had he called on the man to identify himself? In the time it would have taken the potential robber to draw his concealed firearm, he would have already been dead.

Two wrongs. The stuff that fruitless shitfights are made of. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Sorry. I didn't bring any fruit. Let's go back to the shitfight. Uh ... please?

This man is presumably a well trained soldier who dropped the other man with a short burst of fire with good accuracy and from a concealed location.

What sort of risk do you really think he would have endured had he called on the man to identify himself? In the time it would have taken the potential robber to draw his concealed firearm, he would have already been dead.

Well there goes my arguement, I now concede personal defeat. Probably just goes hand in hand with not thinking this through entirely.

And what about the back door? I can't honestly be the only one stuck on that part.

Wrong. If you feel your life is threatened, you have every right to defend yourself, especially when you're in your own home.

Even if you were completely erroneous in your judgement?

Let us just consider the possibility that a neighbor inbetween the shooter's and the thief's house had noticed the robber carrying off some goods including firearms from that general direction. He does not want to stop the robber, so he begins to explore where the robber came from. Even though he is completely innocent, he is shot by mistake by the owner of the house.

By your logic the owner of the house was within his right to shoot the innocent man who made the mistake of being a good but dim-witted neighbor?

Even if you were completely erroneous in your judgement?
When you're put in a situation where your life is in danger, you cannot take the luxury of having a philisophical debate; you either act on the facts at hand, or you don't.


By your logic the owner of the house was within his right to shoot the innocent man who made the mistake of being a good but dim-witted neighbor?
No, he would be within his right to take the action necessary to protect himself in a dangerous situation; the neighbor should've known better then to go into the house, if only because there would be the risk of more robbers in there, or that he might disturb evidence.

Again, we don't know what lead to his decision to assume the man approaching the house was armed, the little blurb in the news article is as always vague.

By your logic the owner of the house was within his right to shoot the innocent man who made the mistake of being a good but dim-witted neighbor?

I don't get why we keep changing who or what came up to the door. Considering he was unaware of it, I doubt it has any bearing on the validity of his actions. If it was within his right to shoot this robber, it was for your hypothetical neighbor. If it was not for the robber, it wasn't for the neighbor either.

How do you determine if a home invader is just there for the TV, and the loose cash, or if he is there to kill/rape/main the inhabitants of the home?

*Finds vantage point behind cover, poinst gun at suspect*
"Freeze! Get your hands above your head! Get down on the ground!"

"Now, why are you here?"

After reading the article, that's my opinion of what he should have done. Adress the person, let the police figure out if he's the one who broke in or not.

This slaying seemes needless.

This slaying seemes needless.

Seems needless? Interesting how we can determine that...

*Finds vantage point behind cover, poinst gun at suspect*
"Freeze! Get your hands above your head! Get down on the ground!"

"Now, why are you here?"

After reading the article, that's my opinion of what he should have done. Adress the person, let the police figure out if he's the one who broke in or not.

This slaying seemes needless.

You think the bastard will give you that much time?

Seems needless? Interesting how we can determine that...
Yes. Seems needless. Based on the article, which is not containing enough details to be sure. I see no need for the veteran to shoot the man approaching his home. None whatsoever.

Bring me more details, like that the person was given a warning or made a sudden move as if going for a gun, then I might change my mind.
You think the bastard will give you that much time?
If he doesn't and pull a gun on you, then you shoot. See the difference?

When you're put in a situation where your life is in danger, you cannot take the luxury of having a philisophical debate; you either act on the facts at hand, or you don't.

This isn't a philosophical debate, this is taking a minimum of steps to identify the intruder as being a danger to his safety. It is doing what is necessary to make sure that you need to kill someone.

I, for one, do not see this type of callousness and negligence towards human life having a place within our society.

No, he would be within his right to take the action necessary to protect himself in a dangerous situation; the neighbor should've known better then to go into the house, if only because there would be the risk of more robbers in there, or that he might disturb evidence.

So the dim-witted neighbor gets what is coming to him if he investigates?

Again, we don't know what lead to his decision to assume the man approaching the house was armed, the little blurb in the news article is as always vague.

Actually it gives the reason the man assumed he was armed:

“Because he believes the man now is armed with his stolen weapons, Mr. Bollinger fires at him three times.”

I don't get why we keep changing who or what came up to the door. Considering he was unaware of it, I doubt it has any bearing on the validity of his actions. If it was within his right to shoot this robber, it was for your hypothetical neighbor. If it was not for the robber, it wasn't for the neighbor either.

It goes to show the negligence in the man's actions, and it was also an attempt to show the absurdity of saying that "If you feel your life is threatened, you have every right to defend yourself".

Do you honestly believe the reaction to this story by the media and the courts would have been the same if he had shot his neighbor as opposed to the robber?

Eh, don't even bother. To far too many people, committing a crime instantly dehumanizes someone, as if they have to be an evil and worthless person to even think of stealing.

Because, of course, there's no such thing as desperation. Not that I'm trying to give criminals a free ride, but there's really nothing to celebrate in a relatively young man getting shot to death, even if it's in the process of the robbery. Everyone makes a shitty choice now and then.. some of those turn out shittier than others. This one was really shitty. But, whether or not the shooting was justified, I don't think the inevitable celebratory remarks about this man's death are.

That's why I'd just hit him with a bokken. (If I could find one)

Do you honestly believe the reaction to this story by the media and the courts would have been the same if he had shot his neighbor as opposed to the robber?

depends - is the neighbor black?

Do you honestly believe the reaction to this story by the media and the courts would have been the same if he had shot his neighbor as opposed to the robber?

Do you think it would be the same if the guy wasn't a vet? If it happened in a different part of the country? If it was printed in the Daily Mail?

Yeah, people would react differently, but that doesn't mean the difference is worth anything.

So the dim-witted neighbor gets what is coming to him if he investigates?

As does the violent rapist.

I can make substitutions too. :D

Yeah, people would react differently, but that doesn't mean the difference is worth anything.

No, it shows there is a meaningful difference between shooting someone who is a danger to you and one who is not, and therefore there is an obligation to establish which particular category the individual you are shooting falls into.

No, it shows there is a meaningful difference between shooting someone who is a danger to you and one who is not, and therefore there is an obligation to establish which particular category the individual you are shooting falls into.

No, no, wait. You're saying that people reacting differently to two situations shows a meaningful distiction between the two. That's what you're saying?

No, no, wait. You're saying that people reacting differently to two situations shows a meaningful distiction between the two. That's what you're saying?

I am saying that he behaved wrongly regardless of who the person was.

That is established because shooting an innocent man is wrong, while protecting yourself is legitimate, and he therefore has an obligation to determine whether the person is a threat or not.

The substitution establishes the negligence of his actions.

That is established because shooting an innocent man is wrong, while protecting yourself is legitimate, and he therefore has an obligation to determine whether the person is a threat or not.

Did we establish that? I can't remember...

Not everyone that has a firearm, has one for self defense. I have one for target shooting. Here's a picture of it (yes, I'm posting a pic of it AGAIN): http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

Looking at the CMP's rulebook for a service rifle match, my rifle should work just fine (even though it only has a 16" barrel), once I get a sling.


oh, the testosterone.



So what are you compensating for again?

Did we establish that? I can't remember...

No, I assumed that, and then established my conclusion on it.

Do you disagree that one should not shoot an innocent man?

Do you disagree that one should be allowed to protect oneself from harm?

No, I assumed that, and then established my conclusion on it.

Do you disagree that one should not shoot an innocent man?

Do you disagree that one should be allowed to protect oneself from harm?

Don't drift too far, eh?

Can one protect oneself from harm when there's a chance an innocent may be shot?

oh, the testosterone.



So what are you compensating for again?

:rolleyes:

First off, I am male, so yes, my body does produce testosterone. Second off, what makes you think I'm compensating for something? Because I have a firearm? Because it looks like a military style weapon? You have to have a military style firearm if you want to compete in many CMP events (which I hope to do, once I get good enough).

Here's the rulebook for Civilian Marksmanship Program competitions: http://www.odcmp.com/Competitions/Rulebook.pdf

Please pay attention to Rule 6, on page 17. My rifle falls within those rules (or will, once I get the proper sling).

Don't drift too far, eh?

Can one protect oneself from harm when there's a chance an innocent may be shot?

That is a rather difficult moral dilemma, but I say yes.

EDIT: My point of course is that he should make an attempt to assure the safety of the innocent.

That is a rather difficult moral dilemma, but I say yes.

EDIT: My point of course is that he should make an attempt to assure the safety of the innocent.

To me, that's exactly what he did - his own innocent self.

He knows the following as facts:

His house has been broken into.

Some of his fully functional weapons are missing.

A person he does not know is entering his house without giving signal or calling out.

He now has microseconds to make a decision. He can assume the person is harmless; he can assume the person is armed and dangerous. Obviously, you must choose part two, if only for self-protection. Given that, you now must decide what you're going to do about it.

1 Nothing. Which would be stupid.

2 Attempt to arrest the target, a tricky procedure he is NOT trained for.

3 Kill the target. Which he is trained for.

Action 3 is the only one which is NOT likely to end with you dead.

Don't get me wrong, I don't celebrate this criminal's demise. But neither do I consider that any wrong has been done. Nor would it have been if the person coming in had been a neighbour - that would have been even more regrettable, but frankly, getting involved in a crime scene needlessly is a damned stupid thing to do.

To me, that's exactly what he did - his own innocent self.

He knows the following as facts:

His house has been broken into.

Some of his fully functional weapons are missing.

A person he does not know is entering his house without giving signal or calling out.

He was also not visibly armed.

He now has microseconds to make a decision. He can assume the person is harmless; he can assume the person is armed and dangerous. Obviously, you must choose part two, if only for self-protection. Given that, you now must decide what you're going to do about it.

1 Nothing. Which would be stupid.

2 Attempt to arrest the target, a tricky procedure he is NOT trained for.

3 Kill the target. Which he is trained for.

Action 3 is the only one which is NOT likely to end with you dead.

I sincerely doubt that he is not trained to identify and subdue a target in less than lethal methods, but nevertheless, I posted this once before and I will post it again.

"This man is presumably a well trained soldier who dropped the other man with a short burst of fire with good accuracy and from a concealed location.

What sort of risk do you really think he would have endured had he called on the man to identify himself? In the time it would have taken the potential robber to draw his concealed firearm, he would have already been dead."

He had a relatively safe (considering the situation) method to determine the danger the person imposed, and his lack of action to determine this should be considered neglegence.

He was also not visibly armed.

Even a fairly large pistol can be effectively invisible under regular clothing. If the man was wearing a coat, an SMG or short-barrelled shotgun likewise.



I sincerely doubt that he is not trained to identify and subdue a target in less than lethal methods,

That makes no sense to me. Subduing a target in a less than lethal fashion is a specialist skill. It's taught to exactly one segment of the community: the Police. It is NOT generally taught to military personnel, whether Officer or Enlisted, as the assumption is that they will never need such training - if they are threatened with violence they are taught to kill their attackers. Only military police are given such training.


but nevertheless, I posted this once before and I will post it again.

"This man is presumably a well trained soldier who dropped the other man with a short burst of fire with good accuracy and from a concealed location.

What sort of risk do you really think he would have endured had he called on the man to identify himself? In the time it would have taken the potential robber to draw his concealed firearm, he would have already been dead."

He had a relatively safe (considering the situation) method to determine the danger the person imposed, and his lack of action to determine this should be considered neglegence.

He wasn't safe at all, nor in any way in control of the situation. "Covering" a person with a gun is a very dangerous thing to do, because you're relying on your reaction speed to be able to take a shot before any action HE initiates either incapacitates you or takes him out of your line of fire.

Most of the time that is a race you will LOSE.

Human reacton speeds average a little over a second. With adrenaline pumping and an action prepared, you might get that down to as little as half a second. What can you do in half a second?

Quite a lot, actually.

I was a Marine. I spent most of my time in guarding embassies, which meant dress blues and a handgun an awful lot of the time. In half a second I could unclip my holster, draw my sidearm and bring it to aim, while throwing myself to one side - it was a drill we performed regularly. I wasn't even close to being the fastest guy in my unit.

(I probably couldn't do that now - I haven't even held a gun in five years. But I could do that then, and there's nothing a military man can do that a civilian can't with a little practice).

Now, this guy was at the back door. He could easily have ducked away to the side, where the vet couldn't see him. He would've then had all the time in the world to prepare his own weapon. We now know that he didn't have one - the vet had no such comforting information. Instead, he had to believe that the intruder probably WAS armed, since it was no stretch to believe this intruder was the one who'd stolen the vet's other guns - a belief that, with hindsight, we actually agree with.

You are holding this person to the same level as a trained policeman. Police have training and specialized skills NO ONE else has. It's an unreasonable expectation.

It goes to show the negligence in the man's actions, and it was also an attempt to show the absurdity of saying that "If you feel your life is threatened, you have every right to defend yourself".
Please justify that assertion.


EDIT: Wait, did you mean (only) in the context of this incident?

Please justify that assertion.


EDIT: Wait, did you mean (only) in the context of this incident?

I meant that you simply can't say "I feel my life is threatened, so I must act", you must have some concrete evidence, and that I don't think this individual had established that, at least to the extent that would allow him to use deadly force.

Even a fairly large pistol can be effectively invisible under regular clothing. If the man was wearing a coat, an SMG or short-barrelled shotgun likewise.




That makes no sense to me. Subduing a target in a less than lethal fashion is a specialist skill. It's taught to exactly one segment of the community: the Police. It is NOT generally taught to military personnel, whether Officer or Enlisted, as the assumption is that they will never need such training - if they are threatened with violence they are taught to kill their attackers. Only military police are given such training.



He wasn't safe at all, nor in any way in control of the situation. "Covering" a person with a gun is a very dangerous thing to do, because you're relying on your reaction speed to be able to take a shot before any action HE initiates either incapacitates you or takes him out of your line of fire.

Most of the time that is a race you will LOSE.

Human reacton speeds average a little over a second. With adrenaline pumping and an action prepared, you might get that down to as little as half a second. What can you do in half a second?

Quite a lot, actually.

I was a Marine. I spent most of my time in guarding embassies, which meant dress blues and a handgun an awful lot of the time. In half a second I could unclip my holster, draw my sidearm and bring it to aim, while throwing myself to one side - it was a drill we performed regularly. I wasn't even close to being the fastest guy in my unit.

(I probably couldn't do that now - I haven't even held a gun in five years. But I could do that then, and there's nothing a military man can do that a civilian can't with a little practice).

Now, this guy was at the back door. He could easily have ducked away to the side, where the vet couldn't see him. He would've then had all the time in the world to prepare his own weapon. We now know that he didn't have one - the vet had no such comforting information. Instead, he had to believe that the intruder probably WAS armed, since it was no stretch to believe this intruder was the one who'd stolen the vet's other guns - a belief that, with hindsight, we actually agree with.

You are holding this person to the same level as a trained policeman. Police have training and specialized skills NO ONE else has. It's an unreasonable expectation.

Apparently this criminal is another Doc Holiday, who could produce a concealed weapon from under his clothing and fire accurately before this trained soldier could squeeze off three rounds from an aimed assault rifle.

He was also not visibly armed.

What sort of risk do you really think he would have endured had he called on the man to identify himself? In the time it would have taken the potential robber to draw his concealed firearm, he would have already been dead."


The thief was Han Solo, smuggling arms to the Rebellion. The victim in question knew if he didn't shoot first and ask questions later, he would be 5 feet under with "Greedo" inscribed on the tombstone.

In terms of the universe, what isn't rare? Empty space?

Quiet you. :p

Apparently this criminal is another Doc Holiday, who could produce a concealed weapon from under his clothing and fire accurately before this trained soldier could squeeze off three rounds from an aimed assault rifle.

If you want to lie about what I posted, asshole, then get the hell out of here. We don't need any more trolls.

I said he could, and I quote, could easily have ducked away to the side, where the vet couldn't see him. He would've then had all the time in the world to prepare his own weapon.

If you have any actual argument to make, then make it, and quit with the sarcastic stupidity.

Apparently this criminal is another Doc Holiday, who could produce a concealed weapon from under his clothing and fire accurately before this trained soldier could squeeze off three rounds from an aimed assault rifle.

You don't have to wait in most US states. If it's dark, you're on the phone with emergency services (which the soldier was), and you're in your own home, and you have reason to believe the person is armed (which he most certainly did), you can fire.

Because it's legal for the homeowner to cap you ('http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_burglarshot_070504/')



Hopefully, the (29 and still living at home?) dead guy never had a chance to reproduce.

Honestly, burglarizing is one thing, stealing weapons is another thing, but coming back in a bit after you've ransacked the place is just completely stupid.

Maybe he should have checked to see if the homeowner was home (maybe watch from across the street) before he waltzed into a hail of gunfire.
Another case of unnecessary use of deadly force. Yippeekiyay!!!

Another case of unnecessary use of deadly force. Yippeekiyay!!!

Unnecessary by what criteria? He took action to save his own life from a perceived threat. I don't see how you can get any more necessary than that.

Another case of unnecessary use of deadly force. Yippeekiyay!!!

Hardly unnecessary.

Hardly unnecessary.

Well, it wasn't necessary - seeing as how we now know that the guy that got shot was unarmed, we can say that it was, indeed, unnecessary to shoot him.

Well, it wasn't necessary - seeing as how we now know that the guy that got shot was unarmed, we can say that it was, indeed, unnecessary to shoot him.

There's no way to know that. The homeowner DID know that guns were stolen.

He WAS trying to enter a back door that had been forced previously.

They DID find the stolen guns in the dead guy's house afterwards...

In the dark, if you are in such a situation, and you ask, "Hey, are you armed?" the answer you get could be gunfire.

You're within your legal rights to shoot first, and ask questions later.

You're within your legal rights to shoot first, and ask questions later.

Legal rights, yes. Necessary? No. That's the fun about hindsight. We can make that call here and now.

He was within his rights to shoot, but all things considered, he shouldn't have shot.

if they are threatened with violence they are taught to kill their attackers.

perhaps this guy should have paid more attention in class to the first part of the lesson

perhaps this guy should have paid more attention in class to the first part of the lesson

A threat is what you perceive to be a threat.

A threat is what you perceive to be a threat.

not when your perception is crazy. me feeling threatened by the existence of people outside my house does not grant me justification to grab my gun, lean out the window and start blastin'.

not when your perception is crazy. me feeling threatened by the existence of people outside my house does not grant me justification to grab my gun, lean out the window and start blastin'.

True. Unless the people outside your house are carrying KKK banners, dressed in white pointy hat robes and carrying torches and shotguns in the middle of the night.

An implied threat is still a threat.

True. Unless the people outside your house are carrying KKK banners, dressed in white pointy hat robes and carrying torches and shotguns in the middle of the night.

An implied threat is still a threat.

Problem is, he didn't even know that it was the same guy. He jumped to that conclusion. He failed at assessing the threat, and shot an unarmed burglar.

Soldiers are also trained in threat assessment, are they not?

True. Unless the people outside your house are carrying KKK banners, dressed in white pointy hat robes and carrying torches and shotguns in the middle of the night.

i'm pretty sure even then you don't get to open fire first. 'cause we seem to get in trouble for punching nazis fairly regularly.

An implied threat is still a threat.

an unarmed man that isn't in your house and doesn't know you are there cannot threaten you.

i'm pretty sure even then you don't get to open fire first. 'cause we seem to get in trouble for punching nazis fairly regularly.Talking about punching Nazis... well, not really, but you got a TG.

If you want to lie about what I posted, asshole, then get the hell out of here. We don't need any more trolls.

I said he could, and I quote,

If you have any actual argument to make, then make it, and quit with the sarcastic stupidity.

My bad, not Doc Holliday, but Major Scott McCoy:
http://cinedestin.privatedns.com/films/d/de/del/deltaforce3.jpg

Is it possible to find a police report on this? Just where was Mr. Royal when he was shot.

All it says is that he was approaching the back door.

an unarmed man that isn't in your house and doesn't know you are there cannot threaten you.

Of course he can - if you have every reason to believe he is armed and has in fact comitted a crime against you already.

The first indicates that he has the capability to harm you. The second is good enough reason to conclude he will actually do so given a chance.

By his actions the criminal provided the vet with good reason to believe his life was in danger. And that is all that is required for self defence.

Problem is, he didn't even know that it was the same guy. He jumped to that conclusion. He failed at assessing the threat, and shot an unarmed burglar.

Soldiers are also trained in threat assessment, are they not?
I agree with you here. The soldier is getting away with murder or at the very least manslaughter.

By his actions the criminal provided the vet with good reason to believe his life was in danger.

by being outside and "approaching" a door?