Kansas City home owner shoots, kills intruder with shotgun

[himher 634]

You do know that to view criminals in this way as 'other' and 'inhuman' and 'disposable' aligns you with most of the more radical fascist dictators, don't you?

As for the Romans, the morality of Rome was very, very different to the morality of today's' USA. using that as an illustration of how civilised a law it is is nonsensical. Still I don't suppose reading or history are your thing, are they?

PS: You do know that your views that "trained representatives of the state" should take over the rights of ordinary people to defend themselves align you with more radical fascist dictators than my views that everyone should have the right to defend their home, selves, and families don't you?

[slim 1,533]

The right to shoot just because someone enters your home is not the same as having the right to shoot someone who is putting your life imminently and immediately in danger.

How much of a burden should a homeowner have to determine if the trespasser intends to do them harm?

Can't we just assume that someone forcefully entering a home is not there to sell cookies? I'm not a proponent of shooting burglars either but there's a very thin line between a home invader and a burglar. One so thin that I believe the burden of proving "no malicious intent" should rest squarely on the trespasser and not on the homeowner. A great way for them to prove that is to stay out of homes.

The issue with legislating things like "determining whether an immediate threat is present" is there's no good way to do it. If we're obligated to take every case to trial and the homeowner is burdened with proving they were in fact in danger before they shot then we've taken away our right to be secure in our homes and now protected the trespassers' right to conduct their business without fear of being killed in the commission of their crime. The safety and security of our homes is lessened.

If we uphold a standard of "cross this line and you might get shot" then it's clear across the board. Don't want to get shot? Don't take the chance of forcefully entering someone's home.

This is why I have never, and will never be against a homeowner using a gun for protection. Contrary to popular belief around here.

But, where do you draw the line? Can homeowners only have a shotgun? Can they have an AK-47? And why is it that a homeowner can protect themselves in the home but if they're out driving around or walking in public they don't have those same rights?

A gun owner should shoot to wound, not kill.

That is illegal in all 57 states.

In order to legally shoot someone the shooter must be in fear for their life. Shooters don't shoot to kill nor wound; they shoot to stop the threat. If the intent of the shooter is to wound someone then their intent is typically aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon or a similar charge. Same with firing warning shots. Gun owners have no legal right to intend wounding anyone.

For that matter, they have no legal right to intend to kill anyone. The intent must always be "to stop the threat" and/or "to protect myself/others from immediate risk of death."

Since most of you armchair attorneys have zero clue or experience with real firearms I'll let you in on a little secret. Sometimes it's not so easy to hit the target and shooting for a wound or a kill is impossible. That's why modern training standards - especially in defense applications - tend to encourage multiple hits to the high center chest.

The quickest way to end the threat is to shoot them several times in the high center chest. You could argue a headshot would be quicker but the head is a much smaller target and your chances of missing increase exponentially. Same with the hips, thighs, buttocks, etc. The military and law enforcement train shooters to hit what they call "center mass" and they do so because it's the biggest target of relevance.

One has to wonder how the Castle Doctrine applies when the intruder turns out to be a family member, or simply a person that innocently ended up at the wrong house.

How does someone innocently end up in the wrong house?

Castle Doctrine applies the same way it does in any other scenario. If the person felt their life was in jeopardy, they had the legal right to defend themselves. A 5-year-old under a Christmas tree may cause someone to feel in fear of their life. That's a legal shooting. Is it smart? Do I agree with it? No.

But legally, if we don't protect that then we lose our protection of shooting a home invader intent on doing us harm.

What's the castle doctrine? Too lazy to google.

Many of the people posting here seem to be ex- military. Aren't they trained to shoot to wound in certain circumstances?

Castle Doctrine, as others have pointed out, comes from the old English law of "an Englishman's home is his castle." What it means in modern day America is we have the right to be secure in our homes and person and if someone threatens that right, we're legally permitted to defend it with force.

For most states with Castle Doctrine it basically means anyone in your house can get shot with pretty much no questions asked. Obviously if it's your best buddy and you shoot him at 3:00 PM, there will be some questions. But, if it's a stranger at 3:00 AM, pretty well justified without much risk of being charged with a crime. In some states Castle Doctrine is extended to your vehicle and other states it's extended to any place at any time. (You may hear this one called "Stand Your Ground.")

Ex-military (and law enforcement) are not taught to shoot to wound. They're taught to shoot to end the threat which caused them to shoot in the first place. As a matter of fact, military folks are obligated to stop shooting an enemy combatant once that enemy is no longer a threat. If the enemy combatant is shot and wounded - and no longer presents a threat - the military even takes it a step further and is obligated to render first aid to that wounded (now) enemy prisoner of war. Laws are funny like that. As soon as their status changes our level of force or response changes and it happens instantly. Problem with warfare is sometimes there's a little overkill and while one dude may have dropped his rifle and stopped fighting his buddy right next to him is still shooting. Suppressive fire, air support, arty, etc., don't really concern themselves with status.

The only instances of military shoot to wound that I've ever even heard of are IDF soldiers firing on Palestinian "troublemakers" (those who throw rocks or molotov cocktails or whatever) with rimfire rifles. They've since ceased this policy because, too often, their "less lethal" policy of shooting people in the thighs with .22s ended up killing the target instead of just wounding them.

Kind of hammers home the point, whenever you shoot someone with a gun, you're using deadly force.

Edited September 7, 2013 by slim

[lostinblue 1,989]

30 arrests in 10 years, 3 stolen vehicles, and 2 residential break-ins. If the kenyan had....

Despite being arrested nearly 30 times in just over 10 years, Christopher Robinson, 30, never broke his drug addictions, which most recently was to methamphetamine.

Edited September 7, 2013 by lostinblue

[slim 1,533]

But the burden should be on the homeowner to try to stop this guy without killing him. That way the state could rehabilitate him and help him become a productive member of society again.

[britishdakota 18]

That is illegal in all 57 states.

There are 50 states, hope that wasn't on your naturalisation test

[Karee 4,191]

There are 50 states, hope that wasn't on your naturalisation test

I'm pretty sure that was directed at Obama.

[Jacque67 7,328]

I'm pretty sure that was directed at Obama.

Slim is a comic genius!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

There are 50 states, hope that wasn't on your naturalisation test

I bet the Kenyan missed that one his citizenship test !

Edited September 8, 2013 by The conciliator

[himher 634]

There are 50 states, hope that wasn't on your naturalisation test

Somebody needs to tell the president. You're assigned the task. Get to it!

[slim 1,533]

Still no answers to my questions above?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Still no answers to my questions above?

You will wait until hell freezes over

You will get a personal attack, change of subject, denial of what was said, and the occasional blame it on Bush

Unless Gary , comes along and mentions sex, Then we got 14 pages of non thread related hysteria

Edited September 10, 2013 by The conciliator

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Unless Gary , comes along and mentions sex,

Or posts creepy pics of high school girls.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Or posts creepy pics of high school girls.

I missed the Pic

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I missed the Pic

Lucky you.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Lucky you.

where they in provocative poses or something..??

what am I missing...Relating to the pics I might add