92-year old vet kills a man with one shot page 2

110 posts

Flag Post

Then they are carrying these weapons illegally. Must be criminals then.

 
Flag Post

Good for that old man. What disrepect young people have today. This man fought for what we have today and this generation of people are out of control. If someone broke into my home I’d shoot them sight no questions asked. I’ve worked hard for what I have and noone will take it from. That’s why I don’t understand if you have morals or just a plain waste of human space then you should be put in cage like a animal is when it’s out of control. I do mean jail.

 
Flag Post

What disrepect young people have today

I have one thing to say. ’’lol’’.

This man fought for what we have today and this generation of people are out of control.

And you base this on?

If someone broke into my home I’d shoot them sight no questions asked.

Right, so you won’t even bother checking if it’s someone that needs help, or anything other than a criminal before you shoot. Nice.

I’ve worked hard for what I have and noone will take it from.

Pro tip: You can purchase back something that’s stolen, and if it’s one of those things that are unique, (Pictures), you can back up most things. Also, shooting someone for a wallet or a TV, or anything easily replaced seems ridiculously harsh.

That’s why I don’t understand if you have morals or just a plain waste of human space then you should be put in cage like a animal is when it’s out of control. I do mean jail.

First part: wat

Second part: Not if you shoot them first, assuming that a crime is being committed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

What disrepect young people have today

I have one thing to say. ’’lol’’.

This man fought for what we have today and this generation of people are out of control.

And you base this on?

If someone broke into my home I’d shoot them sight no questions asked.

Right, so you won’t even bother checking if it’s someone that needs help, or anything other than a criminal before you shoot. Nice.

I’ve worked hard for what I have and noone will take it from.

Pro tip: You can purchase back something that’s stolen, and if it’s one of those things that are unique, (Pictures), you can back up most things. Also, shooting someone for a wallet or a TV, or anything easily replaced seems ridiculously harsh.

That’s why I don’t understand if you have morals or just a plain waste of human space then you should be put in cage like a animal is when it’s out of control. I do mean jail.

First part: wat

Second part: Not if you shoot them first, assuming that a crime is being committed.

I agree with the purchasing the stolen thing back, since cops takes note of what has been stolen.

 
Flag Post

lol what a SCRUB.

he didnt even get a 360 NO SCOPE!!! XD

 
Flag Post

Reading this thread tells me that the same reason guns are portrayed so horribly in British television is the same reason kids who play videogames think shooting someone in the leg is somehow an option. Take a single gun safety class and then tell me it’s easy to wound someone with a firearm. When you fire a gun, you’re shooting to kill, because anything else is going to miss, be incredibly ineffective, or just get you killed. You don’t shoot people who you just don’t want to be standing up anymore, you push them over with a broom. Firing a gun implies certain responsibilities and expectations, nevermind the incredible range of accuracy based on conditions besides the shooter’s capabilities.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

The same reason kids who play videogames think shooting someone in the leg is somehow an option.

Technically that is an option. It’s just likely to be a fatal injury as you rupture surface veins on the way through and rupture major arteries if you hit close to the bone. The person will likely bleed out if you don’t apply pressure pretty quick. There will also be substantial hemorhaging due to tissue stress in adjacent areas.

They still have time to shoot you, or otherwise take you down, but they will most likely die.

Wasn’t that what you as the shooter, were after?

 
Flag Post

Right, but the people who are advocating “shooting to wound” think that firing at someone’s legs is more humane because it won’t kill them. I was actually just going to post that it’s also a misconception that you even CAN shoot to wound. The thing is, if you’re shooting at someone, the torso is a larger target, and improves your chances of hitting. Interestingly, because of the distribution of the organs, you aren’t necessarily even going to kill someone you shoot in the torso, and blood loss from an extremity would be a far more guaranteed way to ensure death. As you mentioned, if you’re shooting at someone, your goal is to remove their threat, and simply wounding them, even fatally, isn’t going to achieve that goal, and is simply going to waste time, your bullets, and tactical advantage.

Would you shoot a bear that’s attacking you “to wound?” Of course not. Why this changes for a man is beyond me, and anyone who’s actually used a gun. But these people keep thinking everything’s as accurate and reliable as they are in videogames, where you have unlimited bullets, stamina, and awareness. Warning shots are even more astoundingly stupid, likewise for a bear or a man.

 
Flag Post

Technically you can ‘shoot to wound’, but you are right, to do so means taking bullets completely out of the equation. It’s why I prefer electrical discharge weaponry. They hurt like hell, lighting the nerves up in the victim like a christmas tree, but the chances of lasting harm from a single shot are minimal.

They also cannot use their muscles whilst they are recovering, which means they are not going to be shooting you, or even holding onto their bowels for that matter. If you have to, you can take their weapon off of them, whilst they wait for the electrical impulses to start reaching their muscles again.

If you are looking to wound not kill, your choice of weapon really does matter.

EDIT:

I think you could even use a multi-shot taser on a bear. I’ve not tried it, lack of opportunity. But it’ll have the same effect on the bear. A blast of pain and a complete lack of bodily control for several seconds. After two or three shots, it should most likely decide it doesn’t like being near you.

 
Flag Post

Entirely agreed, although I would question the particular safety of some electrical discharge weaponry, and the infancy of their research in relation to structural damage of tissues and neurological functions.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Entirely agreed, although I would question the particular safety of some electrical discharge weaponry, and the infancy of their research in relation to structural damage of tissues and neurological functions.

My concern is the lack in effectiveness. Some people are not as affected as others. Everyone is stopped with bullets. If someone breaks into my house, in the same vicinity as my children and wife, with nefarious intentions, I’m perfectly fine with using bullets. I also don’t intend on wounding them. The only reason I would draw a gun on a person is if I needed to kill them. No other reason. If that is the case, and I need to kill someone, I will aim center mast. The intention is to kill them before they hit the ground.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Entirely agreed, although I would question the particular safety of some electrical discharge weaponry, and the infancy of their research in relation to structural damage of tissues and neurological functions.

Yes, so would I. Even the experimentation I’ve done on myself, with electrical spikes between injected electrodes in the radial nerve of my arm under controlled conditions have definitely done damage to my muscle control. So there is a long-term risk there.

However, whilst the voltages in those experiments were considerably lower than the shock a taser gives, it might be the fact that the experiments were repeated over several years, that led to the damage building up to a point it is now noticable. If so, repeated exposure to electrical discharge weaponry should have the same effect, across the entire myelinated nervous system.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Entirely agreed, although I would question the particular safety of some electrical discharge weaponry, and the infancy of their research in relation to structural damage of tissues and neurological functions.

My concern is the lack in effectiveness. Some people are not as affected as others. Everyone is stopped with bullets. If someone breaks into my house, in the same vicinity as my children and wife, with nefarious intentions, I’m perfectly fine with using bullets. I also don’t intend on wounding them. The only reason I would draw a gun on a person is if I needed to kill them. No other reason. If that is the case, and I need to kill someone, I will aim center mast. The intention is to kill them before they hit the ground.

I don’t think we disagree, I was simply saying that, if the goal is to wound, a gun is the least functional weapon to use. As you said, a gun is for killing, and unfortunately killing is the most effective way of stopping a threat. Discharging a firearm in an attempt to wound is literally only putting yourself in further danger. It’s like dropping a nuke near a village so people just get a little radiated: Why are you using a nuke, then?

 
Flag Post

I see. Oddly, we do agree. Should be a first, maybe a last.

 
Flag Post

Right, so you won’t even bother checking if it’s someone that needs help, or anything other than a criminal before you shoot. Nice.

If the person breaks inside my home
especially at night
than i think that they just lost the privilege of explaining themselves.
personally i would at least try to shoot them in the leg and call the police instead of Search and Destroy kill the intruder. but if they give me no choice (They are also carrying a gun or they are carrying a melee weapon and advancing me) than i will kill them.

 
Flag Post

You’re implying information you don’t have. If you’re drawing a gun, you shoot to kill. I don’t know why this is so difficult for people. No one ever should shoot a gun to wound, because it’s both tactically stupid, and in direct opposition to why you would be firing a gun at another person in the first place. Shooting to wound is shooting to miss, and then you shouldn’t be shooting at all.

 
Flag Post

If someone is rushing my 4 year old child with a machete, I’m at least going to try to tie his shoelaces together so he trips, that way I don’t have to hurt him too bad. I’ll try to push him gently as he falls so he lands on a pillow, and then pay for any doctors he needs.

No, honestly, I wouldn’t pay for the gas the Hurst needs to take his corpse to the dump.

 
Flag Post

Adding to what BSG has said, if you draw a gun, then the other person will read it as you intend to kill them, and will defend themselves accordingly. You shoot at the leg, and (miraculously) manage to avoid any major blood vessels. You are now pointing your gun arm at their leg, and offering them a profile in which most of your torso is exposed and your head is down (looking at the leg). Meanwhile they are in a position to fire into your heart and lungs. They are also in a great deal of pain and have likely spasmed reflexly on the trigger.

Things are not looking good for you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

i don’t see what’s so difficult about pointing a gun at someone, pulling a trigger and actually hitting them. i’m not impressed.

otherwise i don’t care either way. they were probably just some kids being stupid, and not out to murder someone. i bet at the first sound of any resident they’d have fled. definitely at the sound of a gunshot.

probably simply too bad their little adventure had a fatal end. probably not much more to the story.

but it is a very interesting discussion about how far you can go in self-defence. i bet different cultures have different ideas about that…

You go ahead and take that chance.

Originally posted by 1132:

A bit silly to kill them, really. I didn’t read anything about them being armed- I personally would have gone for the legs, seeing as in that sort of situation, I’d have the element of surprise. Still, nice shot.

Never shoot to wound.

 
Flag Post
Three words: Go to L.A, they’re always carrying uzi’s or Ak’s, but I only live near there.

Are they shooting people?
No they aren’t.
There are people on my block that that AKs and all that, some carry them in the streets sometimes, they aren’t spraying someone down at close range on sight.
But if they were fired upon, sure they would start shooting, but they still might not hit because they aren’t trained too well in it, and were caught off guard as well as the target wouldn’t be feet away.

>Your face when you see someone walking down the street in a suicide vest a few miles away from of your house
Shocking.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

If someone is rushing my 4 year old child with a machete, I’m at least going to try to tie his shoelaces together so he trips, that way I don’t have to hurt him too bad. I’ll try to push him gently as he falls so he lands on a pillow, and then pay for any doctors he needs.

No, honestly, I wouldn’t pay for the gas the Hurst needs to take his corpse to the dump.

Exactly the type of scenario in which the use of deadly force (be that with a gun, brick, knife, crossbow, whatever) is unequivocally immediately warranted.

Not the same, in any way, as the scenario as reported… if you have the time to, basically, set a trap for the intruder while at no risk to yourself (e.g. you hear them breaking into the basement, stumbling around in the dark and eventually climbing the stairs to another locked door and shoot them on sight as they eventually emerge) you’re not defending yourself or your family, you’re murdering someone who should, by rights, be punished through the judicial system.

Call the police and hold the intruder(s) at gunpoint until they get there… as mentioned earlier, if said intruder goes for a gun/other weapon and became an immediate threat then by all means shoot them.

 
Flag Post

While I agree that might have been a better option, I don’t think the choice he made constitutes as murder. Personally, as a 3 foot tall kid in a wheelchair, I’m going to shoot first.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:
Originally posted by MyTie:

If someone is rushing my 4 year old child with a machete, I’m at least going to try to tie his shoelaces together so he trips, that way I don’t have to hurt him too bad. I’ll try to push him gently as he falls so he lands on a pillow, and then pay for any doctors he needs.

No, honestly, I wouldn’t pay for the gas the Hurst needs to take his corpse to the dump.

Exactly the type of scenario in which the use of deadly force (be that with a gun, brick, knife, crossbow, whatever) is unequivocally immediately warranted.

Not the same, in any way, as the scenario as reported… if you have the time to, basically, set a trap for the intruder while at no risk to yourself (e.g. you hear them breaking into the basement, stumbling around in the dark and eventually climbing the stairs to another locked door and shoot them on sight as they eventually emerge) you’re not defending yourself or your family, you’re murdering someone who should, by rights, be punished through the judicial system.

Call the police and hold the intruder(s) at gunpoint until they get there… as mentioned earlier, if said intruder goes for a gun/other weapon and became an immediate threat then by all means shoot them.

Once again. You have fun with that.
Set a trap…psshhh….are you kidding me? why? what’s the point? that would take too much bloody time…and what if it didn’t work? what if they don’t fall for it? Seriously, don…give me a break. Just shoot the bastards. If they are in your domicile without an invitation, and you have reason to believe that they may harm you or your family, just shoot them. Quit being so damn nice. These guys are assholes. They are criminals. They are in YOUR home for Christ’s sake. Where your family sleeps. Where YOU sleep. I’m sorry…but I feel real bad for the dumbass that tries to break into my home. The Castle Doctrine will be followed with the backing of 12-gauge buckshot. I ain’t taking no chances.

 
Flag Post

Give you a break scoop? How about some English comprehension lessons?

I didn’t say you should set a trap, in fact I said the exact opposite…

First off… IF it’s warranted shoot (i.e. the type of scenario MyTie described)

That said, based solely on his actions as described in the article (which naturally can not be considered a complete picture of what happened) that he effectively set a trap and gunned someone down where it was apparently unwarranted (e.g. what not to do).

The article said, in precis, that he’d heard the intruder(s) and had the time to get his gun, go set himself up nice and safe, wait for someone to emerge from the basement and, rather than challenging them and holding at gunpoint for the authorities (as he should of done) whilst remaining prepared to shoot if they became an actual threat by going for a gun, trying to charge him, whatever… he just shot the first thing he saw which, in my opinion (and that of the British legal system) does not constitute self defence as at no time was there any discernable ‘threat’ to the him or his family.

 
Flag Post

Furthermore…

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person’s abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution. Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases “when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another”.

So yes, you can certainly shoot and kill an armed intruder who’s waving a gun around, for example, as you’d have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious body injury…

But no, you can’t shoot and kill someone (legally that is) where no such reasonable fear exists (e.g. the scenario described in the article pertaining to this guy).