"Homeowner shoots man after home break-in" Dec4, detnews.com, also available thru NRA.com. The homeowner was attacked, & had it not been for his firearm, he could have suffered serious injury or death.
2007-12-06 05:18:26 · 18 answers · asked by Cam1051Sec 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Well said.
2007-12-06 10:34:05 · update #1
Justifieable, however you will probably not find the out cry of anti-gun lobbyists responding to this type of situation.
2007-12-06 05:53:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I sure hope so, because if someone broke into my house at that time and attacked me, they could definitely expect the same outcome. Good Q though, Cam - especially with the recent mall shooting. I do think the sales of firearms should be regulated, but I also am a firm believer that
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"
2007-12-06 07:50:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To me personally a homeowner has the right to respond with countermeasures, the person breaking and entering is doing it at his / her own risk, and has no rights once they violate the legal owners property by entering uninvited.
The home owner once the danger has passed should also know he has no right to discharge his weapon at a person leaving the property, out into the public domain.
To the people that continually harp on about "our right in the Constitution to bear arms" it should be remembered that when that document was drawn up, there were no Police or Security Firms in existence and its time for a reassessment with regards people obtaining weapons.
Weapons training classes should be a priority as well as a psychological profiling of all potential gun owners.
2007-12-06 07:05:33 · answer #3 · answered by conranger1 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'm only answering because of the fact i do no longer want probably risky assumptions to be made by ability of people who use this website. a guy or woman isn't allowed to homicide any intruder interior the domicile. the belief-approximately deadly tension exists which demands the owner of a house to coach that a criminal happened or replaced into being tried, AND that the criminal threatened dying or actual injury. only taking photos somebody which you caught robbing you yet replaced into no longer threatening your existence or who replaced into on your place and started working away whilst discovered has been held by ability of the courts to be inadequate grounds for a private citizen to apply deadly tension.
2016-11-13 21:03:03 · answer #4 · answered by monsalvatge 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If his life was threatened, then yes, it is justified (going by what you've given me; additional details can always change the situation).
This is contrary to what's going on in Texas, where the guy chased down and murdered the men who were trying to rob the empty house next door, then ran from him.
2007-12-06 05:25:23 · answer #5 · answered by amg503 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sounds justifiable to me.
2007-12-06 05:23:50 · answer #6 · answered by rkeech 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds justifiable to me. As long as they are in your home you have every right to protect yourself.
2007-12-06 05:30:04 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Justifiable. It was self-defense.
2007-12-06 05:23:30 · answer #8 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He was cornered and had no other option, I think it is justified, though I you know how I feel about fire arms.
2007-12-06 08:50:47 · answer #9 · answered by Der weiße Hexenmeister 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is justifiable. You were protecting your family and belongings.
2007-12-06 05:24:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋