I'm not sure I understand where you're headed with this one. You say that luck prevented anyone from getting hurt and seemed to infer that this is a good thing. Yet later in your post you say the correct course of action is to shoot first and then ask questions? And 'correct' according to whom? Was PD lucky, or did his intuition / life experience / emotional intelligence lead to him decide, albeit in the moment, to take a non aggressive stance? Surely the fact that no one got hurt is a good thing and the best possible outcome?LL":xvxz7eep said:You are trying to retrofit your values / worldview on a situation that only by LUCK didn't involve someone getting hurt.monbla256":xvxz7eep said:Given all the circumstances of this event in your house, you are to be COMENDED for your INTELEGENT and REASONED reaction to it all !! Especially in the "shoot first and figure it out later" mood so many folks have in this country now !! That was quite an evening you and your family had!! Wish more folks had the pressence of mind as you !
How many deliberate home break-ins are committed by people with criminal intent compared to zoned-out harmless people, do you think?
It would take access to data that civilians don't have as well as depend on the city/neighborhood, of course, but I think it is safe to say that accidents (if indeed that's what this case was---JD is the size of a pro wrestler, drives a cement truck, and works out regularly, and HE couldn't pop the door) are significantly outnumbered by home invasions with criminal intent.
Meaning? Unless you're feeling damn lucky, the correct response to a middle-of-the-night forced break in is to assume the worst. i.e. shoot first and ask questions later. Especially if you have a family.
He's just mouthing the "real Amurican Way" that so many folks espouse over here and we are paying the price society wise all around. Onward thru The Fog !! :twisted: :twisted:Stick":ak85px0s said:I'm not sure I understand where you're headed with this one. You say that luck prevented anyone from getting hurt and seemed to infer that this is a good thing. Yet later in your post you say the correct course of action is to shoot first and then ask questions? And 'correct' according to whom? Was PD lucky, or did his intuition / life experience / emotional intelligence lead to him decide, albeit in the moment, to take a non aggressive stance? Surely the fact that no one got hurt is a good thing and the best possible outcome?LL":ak85px0s said:You are trying to retrofit your values / worldview on a situation that only by LUCK didn't involve someone getting hurt.monbla256":ak85px0s said:Given all the circumstances of this event in your house, you are to be COMENDED for your INTELEGENT and REASONED reaction to it all !! Especially in the "shoot first and figure it out later" mood so many folks have in this country now !! That was quite an evening you and your family had!! Wish more folks had the pressence of mind as you !
How many deliberate home break-ins are committed by people with criminal intent compared to zoned-out harmless people, do you think?
It would take access to data that civilians don't have as well as depend on the city/neighborhood, of course, but I think it is safe to say that accidents (if indeed that's what this case was---JD is the size of a pro wrestler, drives a cement truck, and works out regularly, and HE couldn't pop the door) are significantly outnumbered by home invasions with criminal intent.
Meaning? Unless you're feeling damn lucky, the correct response to a middle-of-the-night forced break in is to assume the worst. i.e. shoot first and ask questions later. Especially if you have a family.
^^^^^ THIS!!!!Simple Man":0ngoy8nd said:Hmmmm, interesting thread... glad you and yours are ok, PD.
The deadbolts on my doors are there for the burglars protection as they are for mine.
Step back and re-read it. You might find it sounds different with some thought given.puros_bran":guyvl7bu said:Monbla are you actually blaming the victim for the criminals offense??
If I defend my family from someone who is criminal trespassing, who has broken and entered, (thereby setting precedence for a complete disregard for law and order) without giving them the benefit of a doubt as to what other criminal offense they intend to commit while in my home I, or others like me, are somehow in the wrong??? Because that's exactly how I read what you are saying.
McDonald's drive thru, right up the road and open 24 hours a day. When I lock my doors the kitchen is closed.mark":df17eync said::fpalm: Every situation is different. Someone busting in armed or threatening harm is one thing, finding some schmuck in the kitchen making himself a ham sandwich is another. Both are guilty of breaking and entering but are you going to shoot the intruding deli bandit after determining there's no threat? I would hope not.
Dammit.scotties22":7cmwsw65 said:Probably not. Just like you don't shoot Uncle John because he walked over the hill while you were deer hunting. You should always look and ***** the situation before you shoot. But, I think you should have the right to shoot if you need to.
And a presumed GIVEN when discussing the subject.puros_bran":7pjonx60 said:Target identification and threat assessment are moral obligations..
You are either 1) wholly disingenuous and knowingly pushing some agenda, 2) incapable of escaping a brainwashed / trance state of some sort, or 3) distinguishing between "greater than" and "less than" exceeds your horsepower rating.monbla256":6vwmcf6k said:He's just mouthing the "real Amurican Way" that so many folks espouse over here and we are paying the price society wise all around. Onward thru The Fog !! :twisted: :twisted:
Enter your email address to join: