Silver Lifetime
- Messages
- 42,722
- Reactions
- 110,934
With regards to "imminent"; are you going to wait for someone pointing a gun at you and your family to start shooting, or are you going to shoot them first?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would absolutely be fine with hanging out a front window and putting a 30 round mag dump into their getaway for sure. Although it's probably stolen so I'd get brought up on vandalism charges.Screw shooting them, go out to the street and gank the cat off their hooptie. Maybe bust a few windows and tires while they're in the 'hood.
The argument from the liberal DA would be that as long as you stay inside the safety perimeter of your home, and the criminal remains outside said safety perimeter, you are safe from his gun. I'm am not even a tiny little bit in agreement with that statement, but you know as well as I do that this would be the argument. They'd say, you had a firearm and if the criminal would have tried to enter your safety perimeter, then you would be justified, but shooting someone just because they are trying to feed their family is murder on your part. Like I said, I think every one of these lowlife thieves need a day of reckoning, but holy chit it would cost a lot more than a new cat to fight this in court even if you win.I just don't understand how someone can consider a person pointing a gun at the house not a deadly threat.
I understand what you're explaining.I would absolutely be fine with hanging out a front window and putting a 30 round mag dump into their getaway for sure. Although it's probably stolen so I'd get brought up on vandalism charges.
The argument from the liberal DA would be that as long as you stay inside the safety perimeter of your home, and the criminal remains outside said safety perimeter, you are safe from his gun. I'm am not even a tiny little bit in agreement with that statement, but you know as well as I do that this would be the argument. They'd say, you had a firearm and if the criminal would have tried to enter your safety perimeter, then you would be justified, but shooting someone just because they are trying to feed their family is murder on your part. Like I said, I think every one of these lowlife thieves need a day of reckoning, but holy chit it would cost a lot more than a new cat to fight this in court even if you win.
The best plan of attack would be close to what @Stomper suggested.....Sneak out the back door, find yourself a nice place of cover with a good view of the situation and then pull out your trusty whistle and blow that focker with every ounce of air your lungs can hold so that the heavens above can hear it. That way God knows you'll be there in a few minutes.
I never said he wasn't a deadly threat. My concerns are based on the gunman being a deadly threat. And I don't like the idea of thieves getting away with stuff, but shooting through the door or even the window next to it seems like a bad idea. Shooting blindly through either would be unsafe and probably illegal. As we all know you are responsible for every bullet you shoot. Yanking the curtain open to see him and make your shot could draw fire before you can get your shot off. If there's no curtain his positioning would probably let him see you first and start shooting first. And please don't tell me you could triangulate your shot placement based on where he is on camera, unless he's extremely close to your door. So again, without firing blindly or exposing yourself to fire from an alert and ready threat. How do you take the gunman out?Theoretically the guy is pointing the gun at the front door right? Most front door areas to houses have windows facing the same direction. If the guy is considered a deadly threat then shooting right through the window a few times would do it. First one breaks the window, maybe hits target, maybe not, second one goes through hole of first one and hits target more likely.
I just don't understand how someone can consider a person pointing a gun at the house not a deadly threat.
If your lights are off inside your house and there is some ambient light on him outside your house, you'd be able to see him rather clearly, but he would not be able to see easily inside the window regardless of curtains or not because of the difference in light outside compared to inside.I never said he wasn't a deadly threat. My concerns are based on the gunman being a deadly threat. And I don't like the idea of thieves getting away with stuff, but shooting through the door or even the window next to it seems like a bad idea. Shooting blindly through either would be unsafe and probably illegal. As we all know you are responsible for every bullet you shoot. Yanking the curtain open to see him and make your shot could draw fire before you can get your shot off. If there's no curtain his positioning would probably let him see you first and start shooting first. And please don't tell me you could triangulate your shot placement based on where he is on camera, unless he's extremely close to your door. So again, without firing blindly or exposing yourself to fire from an alert and ready threat. How do you take the gunman out?
You make a good argument sir.I understand what you're explaining.
From my view defense evidence: video showing regular pistol bullet easily penetrating house materials and retaining lethal velocity well into the home after penetration.
A house isn't bullet proof, the safety perimeter argument makes sense if the perp is just hitting the door with a blunt object, or a knife, but from my point of view, pointing a gun in the direction of people is equivalent to intent to fire gun at people. In all police shootings I'm familiar with, a person points a gun in the direction of police, they get shot. If a guy rolled up to a police station and pointed a gun at the building, I'm 100% confident he'd be shot without a hesitation.
Well, regardless of my severe disdain for thieves. I view the pointing of a gun in the direction of people to be entirely separate and different and unrelated to the theft of the catalytic converter and that action is what leads me to believe it as sufficiently threatening to use lethal force in response, totally irrelevant of the catalytic converter.You make a good argument sir.
Things to consider-If your lights are off inside your house and there is some ambient light on him outside your house, you'd be able to see him rather clearly, but he would not be able to see easily inside the window regardless of curtains or not because of the difference in light outside compared to inside.
...snip...
If a scenario presents itself where I am aware that someone outside my house is pointing a gun at my house where my family and I are inside - it's already a crappy situation that I want stopped. One method is shooting the guy myself. I'm not saying I relish the idea. Simply that it is a lethal threat and unacceptable to allow to continue.
Right- homes are not great bullet stoppers, so, when there are people robbing your muffler, who don't yet have a target, or yet have a reason to shoot, why invite them to start ?You could call the police as well, but that doesn't stop the immediate threat. In my home situation if this were the scenario, there isn't anything truly bullet stopping between the bedroom and the street. If I were in a concrete and steel bunker I might have a different opinion.
From a practical point of view and perhaps also a legal one, the pointed gun wasn't going to be fired so long as the door stayed closed. The homeowner didn't open the door, no shots were fired. After all, they were stealing and didn't want to get caught, that was the point of the gun. Shooting would've elevated their risk of getting caught. Therefore there was an actual disincentive for them to just start shooting for no reason. Being that they were thieves and not psychopaths, this scenario is very probably valid.With regards to "imminent"; are you going to wait for someone pointing a gun at you and your family to start shooting, or are you going to shoot them first?
For clarification, that 30 round mag dump I spoke of was into their unoccupied getaway car so to render it inoperable and forcing them to depart on foot, thereby being forced to carry my catalytic converter with them. I just wanted to make it as difficult as possible on them.That 30 round mag dump might be problematic.
Everything is simple , till it ends up in court.Seems pretty simple from a legal standpoint.
You forgot the postage stamp and return address of, "please do not return and please burn the contents".I would absolutely be fine with hanging out a front window and putting a 30 round mag dump into their getaway for sure. Although it's probably stolen so I'd get brought up on vandalism charges.
The argument from the liberal DA would be that as long as you stay inside the safety perimeter of your home, and the criminal remains outside said safety perimeter, you are safe from his gun. I'm am not even a tiny little bit in agreement with that statement, but you know as well as I do that this would be the argument. They'd say, you had a firearm and if the criminal would have tried to enter your safety perimeter, then you would be justified, but shooting someone just because they are trying to feed their family is murder on your part. Like I said, I think every one of these lowlife thieves need a day of reckoning, but holy chit it would cost a lot more than a new cat to fight this in court even if you win.
The best plan of attack would be close to what @Stomper suggested.....Sneak out the back door, find yourself a nice place of cover with a good view of the situation and then pull out your trusty whistle and blow that focker with every ounce of air your lungs can hold so that the heavens above can hear it. That way God knows you'll be there in a few minutes.