Self defense properly defined

Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
9,109
Reaction score
14,986
Location
Dallas, Texas
A few days ago this news came up but I waited to see what the police would do to the young man who survived this incident:

EarthLink - U.S. News

(c) 2017 Associated Press/US News

Three home invaders all killed by a 23 year old man with a rifle. He will not be charged. The driver of the car that brought the three cohorts to the home they invaded, that is a different story. Charged with murder in the first degree and she says she is not responsible and the victim could have shot the three perps in their legs. A classic moronic statement.

I do want folks to read the article, especially because it covers a case from a few years ago when a pharmacist shot a store invader, ran out and chased his partner, came back in and delivered a coup de gras
shot to the perp lying on the floor - convicted of first degree murder. He should have known better.
 
Register to hide this ad
I may be wrong, and if so, I'm sorry, but that little fat girl looks like she has the personality and brains of a Dixie cup. And her statement about "shooting them in the legs" proves it.

4155299.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice looking house they broke into. I hope we eventually find out the distances involved and some of the particulars.
They've released some info, now that they decided not to charge him:

The burglars had stolen from the garage earlier in the day, and came back to burgle the house.

Zach, 23, a qualified small airplane pilot, rushed down stairs with his AR-15 assault rifle.

As he turned a corner from the hallway and into the kitchen he saw the masked intruders and sprayed them with gunfire.

His bullets thudded into the walls and refrigerator and also killed the three youths with each suffering a single bullet wound to the upper torso.

Zach, in his 911 call told police he had shot two burglars and did not realize that a third had crawled out of the house and had succumbed there.
 
Last edited:
His bullets thudded into the walls and refrigerator and also killed the three youths with each suffering a single bullet wound to the upper torso.
Sprayed them with bullets, killed some walls and the fridge, but each of the three were killed with a single shot to the chest? Hmmmmmm.......
 
The article states:

"Oklahoma is one of 24 states which have laws allowing citizens to shoot someone if they believe the person threatens their safety, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures."

What??? Only 24? Can someone explain the above to me?

Pardon my ignorance, but something tells me that that statement doesn't, at the very least, tell the whole story -if it can even be regarded as factual as written. Or am I just not thinking correctly?

Regards,
Andy
 
The article states:

"Oklahoma is one of 24 states which have laws allowing citizens to shoot someone if they believe the person threatens their safety, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures."

What??? Only 24? Can someone explain the above to me?

Pardon my ignorance, but something tells me that that statement doesn't, at the very least, tell the whole story -if it can even be regarded as factual as written. Or am I just not thinking correctly?

Regards,
Andy

Quote out of context. They copied that number off the NCSL's website out of a much longer piece, according to which 24 states now have expressedly "stand your ground" laws; that doesn't really matter here, of course, because this is a "castle doctrine" case which, as the website also says, is pretty much accepted everywhere.
 
Been following g this story as well. The mother of one of the perps said that they didn't have a fighting chance against such a powerful rifle. What a bunch of idiots, they got what they deserved, shouldn't have been breaking in to people's houses to do God knows what

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
 
Quote out of context. They copied that number off the NCSL's website out of a much longer piece, according to which 24 states now have expressedly "stand your ground" laws; that doesn't really matter here, of course, because this is a "castle doctrine" case which, as the website also says, is pretty much accepted everywhere.


Thanks, Absalom. I was pretty sure something wasn't right there.

Andy
 
The mother of one of the perps said that they didn't have a fighting chance against such a powerful rifle.
"And they were such good boys, too. They sang in the choir, took dinner and blankets to the homeless, and were in the process of turning their lives around." Geesh!! Just once...once...I'd like to hear some mother of these types of scumbags say, "Well, it's about time that worthless piece of junk son of mine got blown away. Heck! I should've drowned him as a pup!"
choir-boys.jpg
 
Last edited:
The mother of one of the perps said that they didn't have a fighting chance against such a powerful rifle.

I understand grief can cloud judgment, but c'mon...are fights with criminals supposed to be fair?

I swear most of these peabrains would rather be virtuous martyrs than survivors.
 
I think the murder charge against the woman is wrong. If the perps had killed someone, then yes. To charge her with murder because the perps were killed by the homeowner, no.

If the police had killed one of the perps, would she have been charged with murder? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top