Looks like you can't protect your home anymore

[Kawhead]

Originally Posted by Idaho

You are right Fish.

He did what I would have done.

Yep. Met too. Well, I'd like to think I would.

I had a car stolen a long time ago just after my wife and I got married, and the financial hardship placed on us at the time was a hell of a burden. Thank goodness my parents had a car to loan us for months so my wife could go to work. Not an extra car, but my Mama's car.

At the time if I caught the sorry SOB I would have tied his wrists to the bumper with piano wire and drug him until I ran out of gas.

There are several organizations, such as church and government agencies, around to help a person if they're hungry or need to get back on their feet, so there is no need to take something from somebody who earned it.

Some people can be taught not to steal, some have to learn by stealing from a fed up, armed, crotchety 65 year old blue hair.

[Loafer]

I believe the man was in a fit of rage, he did what he did, do to feeling violated from a previous break-in and he was not in his right mind when he said what he said, or decided to shoot to kill. He should be under a doctors care and free.

[GIBBY]

Originally Posted by kawboysix

Way to many variables to know why he reacted like he did. He had been victimized before and firearms were stolen? Not an excuse, but did he really KNOW they weren't armed? Maybe he was frustrated with the situation and just snapped. Still not an excuse but maybe could have plead temporary insanity. The prosecutor went for the kill and the defense jumped out of a crackerjack box with this one imo.

Nick Brady's mother stated that her son died a horrible death and that she often wonders what her son would have been?

He would have been a burglar and a thief. Possibly a killer had he continued to get away with his crimes. Most likely didn't get dead committing his FIRST burglary.

Cactusjack. In what way would you consider this situation a case of entrapment by the gun wielding homeowner? Or were you quoting the article. I'm not calling you out , just would like to hear a little more explanation behind your statement.

Nick Brady had been convicted TWICE for burglarizing this same man and stealing prescription drugs. Who knows how many other burglary's he had committed. This man had been burglarized 11 times in the last year, probably by these same kids. Like I said, there is way more to this story than anyone who lives outside of this area realizes. Much of these teenagers criminal past was not allowed to be admitted as evidence. These were far from innocent teenagers breaking into someones house for Thanksgiving dinner. Unfortunately for Byron Smith his first shots were not kill shots.

[paul]

I'm sorry, but they broke into his home. The first action being a hostile action and their action. Therefor, they bear full responsibility for whatever happens to themselves. It's his home, I believe he should be able to do whatever he wants with intruders. Again, they forced themselves upon him. Home is mine, it's where my family lives, and if you violate it, I feel like that football player who bit an opposing players fingers off. When asked why, he said, "All outside the helmet, his.....All inside the helmet, mine."

[davidhollinger]

I have followed this story a while too. You really have to put yourself in his shoes at the time of 12th break in. Gibby said it best, he did what most any of us would do, but he was careless about it and in the end showed more malice that defense. My only suggestion would be to shoot and empty the clip, THEN go see if they are still alive.
If he would have called 911 instead of those finishing shots he would be a free man and it is highly unlikely that anyone would ever break in there again. Then again had they lived they would have sued him and WON. That is how backwards America's justice system has become.

[kawboysix]

Originally Posted by Kawhead

Yep. Met too. Well, I'd like to think I would.

I had a car stolen a long time ago just after my wife and I got married, and the financial hardship placed on us at the time was a hell of a burden. Thank goodness my parents had a car to loan us for months so my wife could go to work. Not an extra car, but my Mama's car.

At the time if I caught the sorry SOB I would have tied his wrists to the bumper with piano wire and drug him until I ran out of gas.

There are several organizations, such as church and government agencies, around to help a person if they're hungry or need to get back on their feet, so there is no need to take something from somebody who earned it.

Some people can be taught not to steal, some have to learn by stealing from a fed up, armed, crotchety 65 year old blue hair.

Mike, churches and government organizations don't hand out herion. and crack. Hungry people don't commit robberys, they beg and borrow. Bored teens will vandalize your car or toilet paper your tree while you sleep. DESPERATE AND ARMED DRUG ADDICTS break into your homes on a holiday. remember that folks. This man did go to far in the end but his initial reaction is expected in my opinoin.

God speed to all of you.

[kawboysix]

Originally Posted by GIBBY

Nick Brady had been convicted TWICE for burglarizing this same man and stealing prescription drugs. Who knows how many other burglary's he had committed. This man had been burglarized 11 times in the last year, probably by these same kids. Like I said, there is way more to this story than anyone who lives outside of this area realizes. Much of these teenagers criminal past was not allowed to be admitted as evidence. These were far from innocent teenagers breaking into someones house for Thanksgiving dinner. Unfortunately for Byron Smith his first shots were not kill shots.

Gibby, just as I suspected. I'm ALWAYS right. I keep trying to tell my wife this but she just won't listen.

[ringadingh]

When first hearing about this, it did seem he went overboard. Since reading that this was the 12th time, I can see how he could react like he did.
Not allowing the teenagers past to be brought up in court can make them appear not what they really are, this is not right either.
He saved them from going to jail eventually, and probably saved a lot of others from becoming victims.

[0vationdave]

Originally Posted by davidhollinger

Then again had they lived they would have sued him and WON. That is how backwards America's justice system has become.

Personally, I think that’s the issue right there. How many people have heard "if you’re going to shoot an intruder, you better kill them" (so they don't sue you later). I mean, how messed up is that that it is even POSSIBLE for them to WIN?!?? Lawyers and loop-holes have messed up our legal system to the point that common sense is now void, and loop-holes reign supreme. You should be able to kneecap both of them and then call the cops, and the verdict should ALWAYS be on the home owner’s side. YOU WERE IN HIS HOUSE! TOO BAD HE SHOT YOU.

Instead, the threat of a frivolous lawsuit forces people to think they have to resort to something like this. Sure, he went too far, but so do lawyers when it comes to protecting the guilty, they created this mess!

[Sin City Stan]

Originally Posted by 0vationdave

Personally, I think that’s the issue right there. How many people have heard "if you’re going to shoot an intruder, you better kill them" (so they don't sue you later). !

First, if they are not alive to sue you their family will sue for them. There is specific insurance available that covers this.

Now, how about a morality play.
You confront two intruders in your home. You have them at gunpoint across the room. You say stop or I will shoot. They stop, open their hands and place them on top of their head. Then turn around facing the door they entered through and announce that they are going to peacefully walk out of the house. They slowly start walking toward the door.

What do you do?
1. Shoot them in the back?
2. Let them go?
3. Follow them outside?
4. You tell me.

[HwyRider]

Often times you don't get the chance to say turn around, hands on your head, and out the door. If you're a senior citizen and some guy in his 20's invades your home then you can be sure that he doesn't find you a threat even with a gun.

I still like my solution. Shoot them, put them through the meat grinder, and feed them to the dogs. No body, no crime, no evidence.

[GIBBY]

Originally Posted by Sin City Stan

First, if they are not alive to sue you their family will sue for them. There is specific insurance available that covers this.

Now, how about a morality play.
You confront two intruders in your home. You have them at gunpoint across the room. You say stop or I will shoot. They stop, open their hands and place them on top of their head. Then turn around facing the door they entered through and announce that they are going to peacefully walk out of the house. They slowly start walking toward the door.

What do you do?
1. Shoot them in the back?
2. Let them go?
3. Follow them outside?
4. You tell me.

5. Shoot them in the lower extremities and let them crawl out the door and then do what some countries do to thieves, cut their hands off.

[kawboysix]

Originally Posted by Sin City Stan

First, if they are not alive to sue you their family will sue for them. There is specific insurance available that covers this.

Now, how about a morality play.
You confront two intruders in your home. You have them at gunpoint across the room. You say stop or I will shoot. They stop, open their hands and place them on top of their head. Then turn around facing the door they entered through and announce that they are going to peacefully walk out of the house. They slowly start walking toward the door.

What do you do?
1. Shoot them in the back?
2. Let them go?
3. Follow them outside?
4. You tell me.

First off your senario would never play out like that but possibly you would'nt mind answering your own question for us?

My answer would be completely different from most but I can't react how I might want to. I am held to a much different standard than you.

I plead the fifth to your inquiry.

[Sin City Stan]

Originally Posted by kawboysix

First off your senario would never play out like that but possibly you would'nt mind answering your own question for us?

My answer would be completely different from most but I can't react how I might want to. I am held to a much different standard than you.

I plead the fifth to your inquiry.

IMO you're held to a lower standard. You're not responsible where your bullets end up or in who. I am. I can shoot the bad guy but if my round goes through him and hits a good guy I'm in it up to my neck. If I try to shoot a bad guy and miss and hit a good guy I'm the one going to jail.

As far as what I would do . . . If a person was walking away from me I would have to think that my life was no longer in eminent danger and I would not shoot them in the back. I would do whatever else could be done to identify them so their hands could be cut off at a later date.

However, any movement that would suggest anything other than peaceful retreat on their part would receive an immediate deadly response.

To all, you should already know what steps you will take after you render deadly force. Who will call 911. Who you will talk to. Your lawyers home phone number, it goes on and on. That's why you need insurance if you go down this path.

As far as executing intruders who are no longer a threat to your life . . . the guy got what he deserved. No matter if they were the turds of society, he is not the Judge & Jury.

[Silent Sam]

When a citizen has no right to protect/defend his own self/home...it's time to purge the cartel of treason that cancelled his right !

The sad fact is that if you are victimized (especially senior citizens) in your own home...and you shoot the scum..and only cripple them, they are allowed to sue you for -everything !..while the entire legal process cost's us all $millions...

I feel that a shot to the scull -or 2 or 3, is the best answer to cutting the cost to society, and being sure the scum dont return to victimize good people --over and over again !