Skip to main content

View Diary: Best. DGU. Ever. Naked "burglar", when faced with gun, sh1+s on floor, and...and... (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know if it even did that. I'm not saying (4+ / 0-)

    the gun wasn't a comforting thing for the homeowners to have but I put myself in the same situation using a baseball bat (my attitude adjustor of choice) and I don't see any different outcome.

    Guess you can never tell, but it is a weird story none-the-less.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:26:24 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  They fired warning shots, can you do that with a (9+ / 0-)

      baseball bat?  What's the sound of one hand clapping?

      Besides one good hit with a baseball bat can do so much damage.  

      It seems the sound of the firearm may have helped.

      Now that's an option to explore, marketing gunshot fire to ward of home invaders, hummmmmm or maybe an Air Horn of sorts.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:34:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  three warning shots? (5+ / 0-)

        You believe that? I wouldn't without seeing the bullet holes in a ceiling. Sounds like bullshit.

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:51:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the claim to obfuscate the woman's (6+ / 0-)

          bad shooting skills.

          ;)

          "She wasn't firing blindly, no officer, not at all, she intentionally meant to hit the TV, the family pictures and the dog"

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:21:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  lucky it wasn't my wife shooting at him (4+ / 0-)

            If my wife shoots at a target three times, it gets hit three times. He would probably still have shit himself, perhaps posthumously, but blood on the carpet is preferable to idiot semen any day of the week.

            Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

            by Tom Seaview on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:44:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bragging about how you and your wife (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miss Blue, SilentBrook

              would'a killed the shit out of that guy--classy.

              I wonder if it's possible to maintain your right to defend your home without sounding descending into hyperbolic blood lust?

              I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

              by coquiero on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:08:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Contrary to current popular media, some people (8+ / 0-)

                do not feel using a firearm to stop a criminal is a bad thing.

                The "blood lust" is of your own design in an attempt to make others believe as you do; shaming them into accepting your morality as superior.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:20:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read his comment again (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SilentBrook

                  and read mine.

                  Your comment has nothing to do with what I was saying.

                  I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                  by coquiero on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:22:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, I saw it as a snarky remark, not your (5+ / 0-)

                    "blood lust" comparison.

                    It seemed appropriate for the humor being displayed in the diary.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:40:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Odd sense of humor (0+ / 0-)

                      I saw your comment and could see that as humorous, but his was not.

                      There comes a point where it seems like some people are almost wishing for a break in, so they can defend themselves.  I stand by the blood lust comment.

                      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                      by coquiero on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:47:42 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You see, that's the problem right there. (6+ / 0-)

                        You judge them by your standards, not theirs.  Tom is a very good man whom takes life very seriously, especially his own.  It isn't a game or a joke, it's a reality when confronted with these very real occurrences, what will one do?

                        Since I do not own a firearm, I'm gonna have to think quick on my feet but for those not capable of physically defending themselves from a drugged up intruder, there has to be alternatives...

                        The snarky part of his comment drew an image in my head of having to clean up some other man's semen in his own home.  The shame and irony of it.

                        I also understood his thought about cleaning up the blood.  I had to do that after my older roommate passed away at our kitchen table and after the medics came and tried as they could to save her.  I had to clean up the blood soaked floor...

                        Neither instance is hilarious or funny or equal to "blood lust".

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:59:14 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry you fail to get it (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, PavePusher

                My wife and I, owning and carrying defensive firearms, have discussed our plans for the use of weapons to defend ourselves and our home.
                Here's the bottom line as far as this case goes (and feel free to take advantage of this, if you need a TV or laptop): we would not hurt anyone to protect property.
                If some poor drugged-out loser -- or an entire moving crew -- decided to break into our home, and if we were satisfied that their entire intent was to steal stuff, we would point weapons at them and yell warnings... but we would not kill anyone over mere belongings.

                My comment was simply to indicate that my wife, like myself, has been extensively trained, and has fired thousands of rounds in practice at the range. She shoots better than most men we know... including some cops and combat veterans. She is calm, competent and capable. She would not miss a man-sized target at household distances: not once, let alone three times. Neither would I.

                The other point of my comment was to indicate that I personally understand how awful it would be to kill someone. I have seen people die violently; their blood was by far the least awful part of the experience. I would happily lose and/or replace a whole lot of "cherished" belongings to avoid seeing that again, let alone cleaning up after it... and my wife has never seen anything that awful; keeping it that way is, for me, a priority.
                I have also been in a fight with someone determined to kill me; what I had to do there was not pretty.

                Faced with a lethal threat to myself, my wife, or my mother-in-law, then yes I would use deadly force. I've faced that decision before, so I know all too well what I would do... and, again, I know from experience how infinitely preferable it would be to avoid it.

                Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                by Tom Seaview on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:01:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  What goes unsaid is that rounds were flying about (4+ / 0-)

      and they had a young son in the vicinity. No thought given as to what tragedy those wild rounds could have done.

      I'm not anti-gun, but I think the average citizen would be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn under these circumstances.

      They should have had a sawed-off shotgun loaded with birdshot.

      •  Me? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tom Seaview, KenBee, PavePusher

        I probably woulda thrown a kitchen chair at dude then just bum rushed him. I doubt I, personally, woulda gone straight for a gun.

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:46:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  NFA Class III weapon, prohibited since 1934, (7+ / 0-)

        without license and applicable Tax Stamp.

        •  Justified by the SCOTUS on the (obsolete) belief (5+ / 0-)

          that fully-automatic weapons and short-barreled shotguns had, in 1939, no reasonable connection for use in a militia.

          That's right, the ban on civilian ownership of full auto weapons and sawed-off shot guns was upheld by the SCOTUS not because Congress is permitted under the 2nd to prohibit personal arms deemed that only a military should be allowed to have (which is the current gun-controller mantra), but that these weapons did not receive 2nd Amendment protection because they were exotic weapons no military would use - at least in the minds of elderly justices in 1939 who apparently hadn't been keeping track of such things since well before WWI (and that there was no opposing counsel to argue facts to the contrary).

          If U.S. vs. Miller were reargued today, not questioning reasoning behind the decision, but the facts behind it, not only would any AWB fail, but it's likely that the Hughes amendment and possibly much of the NFA would be overturned.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:14:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not just "in the vicinity", but... (4+ / 0-)

        they were aparently keeping the gun in the kid's closet?!? Perhaps this is just another example of incomplete journalism, but lacking anymore detail, this is a textbook example of unsafe gun storage. Under similar circumstances, that kid in ABQ armed himself to kill family, and preped to do the same to strangers who almost made the fatal error of shopping in public. Not to mention the "wild rounds" you cite, Buckeye.

        It's no wonder this is explicitely an non-RKBA diary; this sort of unsafe gun storage provides little confidence that these gun-owners aren't a fatal accident (or 2) waiting to happen.

        That, arguably, this incident was not substantially altered by the presence/use of the gun (in spite of the headline's implying that the tresspasser pooped after those three rounds were fired), brings this whole story into perspective: poor gun safety, minimal (if any) positive result, but some guy still went nuts and pooped & jerked to his heart's content, then was tased into custody.

        How this all advocates DGU remains unclear; it seems to take on faith that somehow, this situation would have gotten face-eatingly worse had there not been "warning shots". Which means you have to buy the fear of the worst possible outcome to accept the premise. Forgive me if I think such paranoia to be a most unwelcome attitude for any "responsible gun owner".

        A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

        by SilentBrook on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:00:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A naked man broke in, stole, shit and masterbated (4+ / 0-)

          How is finding that a threat 'paranoia', exactly?

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:10:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Proportionality (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, splintersawry

            A naked man, masterbating and deficating in someone else's house is certainly unsettling and entirely worthy of calling the cops, but to assume that it reaches the level of an existential threat compelling one to use deadly force is a huge leap of logic, so far enough to be grossly excessive. Since the motive here is fear, grossly excessive fear is rightly named paranoia.

            I realize that sometimes someone is paranoid and they are at the same time under threat. That their fears can meet such reality is more luck than design. Such concordances, however, do not justify paranoia.

            A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

            by SilentBrook on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:46:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A person could reasonably fear for their lives (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              in a situation like this.
              There is no court in this world that would agree with your analysis.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:32:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, really. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                Just the fact that a stranger is in my home is enough for me to know my life is in danger.  The fact that he's unclothed tells me my life is in even greater danger as there is clearly a mental issue of some sort involved.  But some would suggest that, if faced with such circumstances, the homeowner should ... what?  Question the invader to try and determine his intent?  Assume nothing is wrong and go back to sleep?

                People who think like that are more likely to wind up being a (dead) victim than people who take the chance of having a gun in their home (presumably well-secured).

                And no, I'm not a gun-owner.  But if I ever feel life becomes dangerous enough where I live that I'd be wise to become one, you can bet I'll be buying one that can do the most damage in the least amount of time because I'm not going to make the assumption that the bad guys are carrying pea shooters.

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:13:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site