Virginia Man Shoots & Kills Intruding Pimp

[Offwhite]

Thorn you said
"i would hope people would make a slight effort to remember that BIG guy up there who set down some rules, and maybe attempt to disable BG rather than "kill" though."

theres a couple of things wrong with this but mainly this: What if the BG didn't have a weapon & you shot him, now true he broke into your house but in many states (thankfully not mine) you could get time in jail or at the least a few years of probation and a tarnished record. If the intruder testifies against you that he didn't have a weapon or even a gun you have little chance. But if you kill him (shoot to kill) he can not testify against you ...this has told to me by my Godfather who is a retired US Marshall.

Push comes to shove my family comes first, not some ex-con pimp fresh outta jail..you break into my house you better get my first cause you aint walking out brother.

of course you gotta get through a 70 pund Pit and a 160 pind Neopaliten Mastiff before you'll ever reach us.

 

[thorn726]

nothing better than a ridiculous legal justification.

Offwhite, the thread as a whole had more or less won me over, your post is not very intelligent.

it all depends what state you are in. in NC, a dead BG may be better. in CA somehow, i doubt it.
a dead guy with no gun is just as descriptive as a live one. (of course, i imagine you're factoring in time to place a bunk gun in BG's hand, nice, very nice.)

i dont know, you guys are all convinced there is no alternative to shooting.

i suppose given the situation, in this particular case maybe there wasnt.

but having read over CA incidents, while we have no "duty to retreat" law= if i kill some guy breaknig into my house, i am spending the next 3 months in jail and court- and when i get out, i will be homeless with nothing.

and yes, being alive would be better than dead.

when you have a gun, and laws that protect its use, this is all not such a big deal.

not everyone can think like that.

 

[Offwhite]

You also might live in a state that tries to protect the person commmiting the crime as the same as the victim. And you can't really say one way or the other until you've been in a similar situation.

I was stabbed when I was 19, and I had told the man robbing us that he could have whatever just don't hurt me or my (at the time) girlfriend. After robbing us he stabbed me in my side 4 times. I tried to end the situation peacefully without violence but that didn't happen. I used to think some-what along the lines of what you've been saying, but after that particualr incident I not only change my thinking but almost my way of life. If I'd been 21 or older & been carry my CCW (as I have since being 21 & being certified) I would have "done what I could" to make sure that niether of us would have been hurt. Its like I was taught when I was boxing, if you hesitate or wait to make the first move you might not get another chance...

No disrespect to you or how you feel, I'm only talking through life lessons

 

[Sportcat]

"pimpin' ain't easy"

 

[odysseus]

As to the law school student saying, "I regret having to take a human life", I consider it to be an honest response. If we don't value human life, even that of someone as far removed from ourselves as the POS pimp that seemed intent on violence towards the GF, then we're little better than the dead pimp. Turning people into "things" to be treated any way we want is the thinking that the criminals use and is a slippery slope for us normal folks.

That was very well said. Basically summed up my thoughts on this thread with Thorn.

Essentially there is a level where protecting and keeping safe human life means sometimes stopping someone who is out to harm people might mean that the aggressor dies from trying to stop them. Also no one should be expected to not meet with equal and strong force anyone who would forcibly break into their home with them inside. It does not mean you don't value human life; does not mean you would not feel terrible for taking it. In fact, this person was protecting himself and his girlfriend. It was the aggressor who was careless with human life and it's sanctity.

Trying to second guess this and say "shoot them in the leg", while understandably is an honorable idea, is marked with erroneous logic and plain false idealism to the reality of violent force. Trying to guess what really is the intent of the aggressor breaking into the home, i.e. what level of crime, is going to do is also erroneous and sorely naive, to the point people have died from not reacting with equal strength. It's very naive.

 

[Offwhite]

"It was the aggressor who was careless with human life and it's sanctity."

Very well stated Odysseus

 

[bobhaverford]

Thorn,

I wouldn't want one of my sisters or daughters to have a relationship with you. You clearly are not up to the most important task at hand. And in case you still haven't figured that out - protecting your women!! You are unfortunately a bit addled and confused. I guess your mind has been numbed by the Leftist mist. My recommendation to you: sell all of your guns. You very well could hurt yourself or others because your mindset and attitude are not up to the resposibilities of gun ownership.

 

[Janitor]

Ok. I'm not saying this to be one more guy to jump on the "Rip on Thorn" badwagon. But the 'Dicey Logic' police insisted I point this one out.

taking into consideration the avergage California speedfreak burglar already has felonies, and is therefore unarmed.

So in this statement, you're saying that the average speedreak/burglar isn't armed, as they've been busted and it's now against the law for them to carry? You must have a much kinder, gentler class of drug addict out there than we have in the midwest. Here, they don't seem to give a rip if they're breaking the law.

In defense - the next line in your post:

most drug addicts sell their guns for drugs.

Presents a more believeable argument for feeling the druggie is probably unarmed.

Every day, we bet our, and our loved ones lives on probabilities. We probably won't get in a car accident. There probably will not be a terrorist attack on the grocery market while I'm there. There probably will not be a guy driving on the sidewalk at the mall.

Wanna bet your teenage daughters life that the criminal that just broke through your locked door, knowing you were home probably isn't armed?

 

[Ryder]

It does seem possible that they misled the robber/pimp into believing nobody was home. I don't have a problem with that but it doesn't take much effort to yell "who's there?" when someone is outside your house in the dark. I do it all the time.

 

[dasmi]

It does seem possible that they misled the robber/pimp into believing nobody was home. I don't have a problem with that but it doesn't take much effort to yell "who's there?" when someone is outside your house in the dark. I do it all the time.

Irelevant. Home or not, he did not belong in that house. He made the choice.

 

[Warren]

Any word on who got custody of the goldfish in the heel of the dead pimp's platform shoe?