While we are on the topic of doing stupid things...

[JohnnyMac]

I doubt that China is intent on improving our gene pool, and sees other benefits to spreading such nonsense.

Honestly, I think it is improving the gene pool. Part of Darwin's theory of evolution is that stupid people die and therefore do not pass their stupid genes on to start another stupid generation.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Honestly, I think it is improving the gene pool. Part of Darwin's theory of evolution is that stupid people die and therefore do not pass their stupid genes on to start another stupid generation.

I might disagree there. It seems the smart people are the ones not reproducing in enough numbers, while it's the stupid ones breeding like feral pigs

 

[JohnnyMac]

I might disagree there. It seems the smart people are the ones not reproducing in enough numbers, while it's the stupid ones breeding like feral pigs

You might have something there.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I guess the latest challenge is to burn down your school..

Students targeting Chromebooks in dangerous TikTok challenge, schools warn

An East Bay school district is warning parents about a dangerous and destructive TikTok trend that officials say could cause serious burns or injuries.

www.ktvu.com

 

[Mikej]

I guess the latest challenge is to burn down your school..

Students targeting Chromebooks in dangerous TikTok challenge, schools warn

An East Bay school district is warning parents about a dangerous and destructive TikTok trend that officials say could cause serious burns or injuries.

www.ktvu.com

Really?

 

[P7M13]

Would there be riots if this fit the narrative?

 

[Provincial]

Honestly, I think it is improving the gene pool. Part of Darwin's theory of evolution is that stupid people die and therefore do not pass their stupid genes on to start another stupid generation.

I didn't say that isn't improving the gene pool. I was only pointing out that China doesn't have that intent. They want us stupider.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Really?

Flames make fires so.. yes.

 

[BlackHoleSun]

Idiot teens thought it would be funny to kick in someone's door at 3am. Home owner responded exactly how I would have and defended himself resulting in 1 teen dead and another in the hospital. The teens excuse for breaking and entering? It was a tiktok prank! So the homeowner went to jail with no bail for defending himself against idiots.

You are damned if you do, damned if you don't. If i feel in danger, I am not waiting for the bad guys to get through the door before defending myself.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLp_mBn31rM&t=276s

 

[Joe13]

Then you will likely get the same result…

You can not legally shoot someone kicking in you door nor running away from you.

There is another large thread on this topic from a few days ago.

 

[Tony617]

While we are on the topic of doing stupid things...

A northern Virginia man is facing multiple charges after investigators say he shot and killed a high school student who he believed was trying to break into his house. A friend of the teen claims it was all part of a TikTok challenge that turned tragic...

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[WillametteWill]

From the reports I'm finding, the teens were playing the modern version of ding dong doorbell ditch (which has been around foe what, 70+ years) and they were shot while running away. Difficult to prove you were in fear for your life if someone is running from you and not shooting at you at the same time.

Ironically, USCCA, advertised in the video, would likely not defend you in this situation. Know the law and what you can do before blasting.

 

[1775usmc]

How are you in danger if they are running the opposite direction from you?

Wait for them to break the threshold of the door. Then it's game on.

 

[Koda]

For discussion, in order to shoot thru the door you would absolutely have to know whats happening on the other side of the door is a threat to your life.

 

[RVTECH]

The teens excuse for breaking and entering?

Except they didn't 'break and enter'.

So the homeowner went to jail with no bail for defending himself against idiots.

No, he went to jail for shooting at unarmed, fleeing people, and killing one.

 

[1775usmc]

Stage yourself is an advantageous location, call the cops and let them know what is taking place and that you have a firearm and fear for your life. If you have a ring/security camera or can see them relay descriptions and directions they run.

Shooting through the door also present another issue as to where those bullets go that didn't make contact with the suspects. You own every one of them.

Don't chase after the individual. At that point it is no longer self defense. Unless for some reason they abducted a child or something along those lines.

Use your head. Emotions get you killed, or thrown in jail.

 

[Koda]

The super short version is shooting thru a door is a really bad idea and more likely than not going to land you in prison.

 

[Geezer42]

Shooting anyone unless you are in fear for your life, up close and personal, will get you jail time. Here in Jackson County some years ago a rural land owner had been harassed by a bunch of youngsters, and was finally fed up. They came racing up his driveway AGAIN, and he opened fire while his wife was on the phone with the police. He did go to jail for quite a stretch, as the court ruled he was not in danger, as the kids were in a vehicle and unarmed. Anger and paranoia will get you five to ten!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

A kick , or several at your door , at 3 am can be seen as threatening....
However it may not be an actual threat....a very important difference and something to consider.

During stress...the mind can see and hear what it expects to see and hear...
Which may not be the case in reality.

Shooting through a door....shooting at someone fleeing / running away...
Ain't a good idea.
Neither is "Pranking" someone by kicking their door in the wee hours of the morning...or at any time.
Andy

 

[RVTECH]

Not 'passing judgement', and I only 'skimmed' the video but the impression I got was Colion Noir was more/less on the side of the shooter.

It's almost like he was suggesting the guy WAS in fact POTENTIALLY in danger and his 'inference' was that he MIGHT HAVE been justified in what he did - yet he never brought up the fact they were NOT armed and running away. It's almost like he doesn't believe their story of it being a 'prank' and it MIGHT have been intentional B & E.

My point being is REGARDLESS of 'We don't know what he saw, We don't know what he heard' (4:47) the guy responded illegally - yet Colion makes it sound like there could still be some unrevealed 'facts' that could exonerate the guy - but this is just my interpretation of it.