Political Crossfire Forums

[OneZero]

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198299,00.html

Quote: One man arrested in last week's killings — James Stewart, 30 — was searching for the safe upstairs but found nothing and went downstairs, according to a probable cause affidavit filed Monday, the first detailed account of the incident. There he found that Magno Albarran, 29, had entered the house and pulled a gun on Desmond Turner, 28, whom authorities consider the main triggerman.

What do you do when something like this happens? You pull a gun on someone, thinking they're the only one there, and then his buddy shows up, also armed (interestingly these were ARMED burglars Lucky Luke.... shows that burglars DO in fact enter houses with guns) and you end up dead.

I probably would have shot the first guy and tried to take cover and shoot the second guy. I might have not made it but I would have taken one of the little b@st@rds with me.

[X-Shocker]

This goes to prove that one should always shoot first, then ask questions later.

[OneZero]

X-Shocker wrote: This goes to prove that one should always shoot first, then ask questions later.

Not really, but if he has a gun and is pointing it at you, then yes.

[Gremlin]

OneZero wrote: X-Shocker wrote: This goes to prove that one should always shoot first, then ask questions later.

Not really, but if he has a gun and is pointing it at you, then yes.


Im cold blooded, if i dont have a clue who the hell you are rummaging threw my crap and i have a loaded gun in my hand. It will soon be less the fully loaded. Ill deal with the consequences when they come.

[OneZero]

Gremlin wrote: OneZero wrote: X-Shocker wrote: This goes to prove that one should always shoot first, then ask questions later.

Not really, but if he has a gun and is pointing it at you, then yes.


Im cold blooded, if i dont have a clue who the hell you are rummaging threw my crap and i have a loaded gun in my hand. It will soon be less the fully loaded. Ill deal with the consequences when they come.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. :wink:

[Thrilla]

if guns are involved... and if you want to live.... it is wise to put rounds downrange and take control of the situation.
in these circumstances you have a split second to gain the initiative, assess the situation and act.
it all depends on instinct really...lets hope the good guys out their have good instincts

[cplcarlman]

The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

[OneZero]

cplcarlman wrote: The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

Same here. A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff = dead bad guy.

[airo]

OneZero wrote: cplcarlman wrote: The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

Same here. A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff = dead bad guy.

Or your son looking for another $20 before he slips out for the night.

[perdidochas]

airo wrote: OneZero wrote: cplcarlman wrote: The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

Same here. A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff = dead bad guy.

Or your son looking for another $20 before he slips out for the night.

Onezero, said, and I quote "A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff" His son going through his stuff would be a KNOWN guy. Also, read the article posted by the OP, which explains what OZ said.

[airo]

perdidochas wrote: airo wrote: OneZero wrote: cplcarlman wrote: The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

Same here. A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff = dead bad guy.

Or your son looking for another $20 before he slips out for the night.

Onezero, said, and I quote "A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff" His son going through his stuff would be a KNOWN guy. Also, read the article posted by the OP, which explains what OZ said.

Oh, i get it. Because in the middle of the night, big green lettering that reads "KNOWN" appears over people you know's heads.

No matter what, identify WHO you're firing at before you actually pull the trigger. THIS IS ONE OF THE CARDNIAL RULES OF FIREARM SAFETY.

(I bolded the important part.)

[cplcarlman]

airo wrote: OneZero wrote: cplcarlman wrote: The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

Same here. A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff = dead bad guy.

Or your son looking for another $20 before he slips out for the night.

Sorry if I didn't illuminate identifying my target first. That is an understood rule with me. I'm pretty sure anyone rifling through my stuff is not going to be doing it in a pitch dark room. It makes stealing extremely inefficient, as well as we always have a light on in my kitchen / living room.

Also, no one will ever enter (or leave) my house when I am there without me knowing about it because I had an alarm installed that I rely on for early warning rather than security.

[perdidochas]

airo wrote: perdidochas wrote: airo wrote: OneZero wrote: cplcarlman wrote: The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

Same here. A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff = dead bad guy.

Or your son looking for another $20 before he slips out for the night.

Onezero, said, and I quote "A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff" His son going through his stuff would be a KNOWN guy. Also, read the article posted by the OP, which explains what OZ said.

Oh, i get it. Because in the middle of the night, big green lettering that reads "KNOWN" appears over people you know's heads.

No matter what, identify WHO you're firing at before you actually pull the trigger. THIS IS ONE OF THE CARDNIAL RULES OF FIREARM SAFETY.

(I bolded the important part.)

I know how my son looks. I would imagine OZ does as well. If I see my son (or even his friends) rummaging around through my stuff, it's not an unknown person. I'm not disagreeing with you on the ID issue. You need to know your target. However, I read OZ as saying that if it was a person that he didn't know, he would shoot. You are presuming unknown means he doesn't have a clue of who it is. I'm presuming unknown meaning he doesn't know the actual guy. I probably would have used the term stranger instead of unknown, personally.

[airo]

When a target is hunched over, light in a drawer, it's hard to ID them. At least, it would be for me. Maybe you guys have some sort of self-taught telekinetic powers that i'm lacking, but, at that moment, i have a drop on the guy, and i'm honestly not too fond of the idea of having to kill someone in my home if it's avoidable.

Taking another human life is never an easy thing.

I've read stories such as a man shooting an officer who was checking in on his home. He came home early from a vacation, and had asked the local PD to keep an eye on his home while he was away. The cop noticed activity in the house, and came closer to check it out. The man saw a man in his backyard, coming up on his bedroom's sliding glass door, his hand on what looked to be a pistol at his side. He opened fire before IDing his target, killing the police officer.

You have the ability to prevent bloodshed. Take it. Or do you honestly think that the man bent over rummaging through your stuff can turn around, break leather, and acquire you faster than you pull the trigger?

[perdidochas]

airo wrote: When a target is hunched over, light in a drawer, it's hard to ID them. At least, it would be for me. Maybe you guys have some sort of self-taught telekinetic powers that i'm lacking, but, at that moment, i have a drop on the guy, and i'm honestly not too fond of the idea of having to kill someone in my home if it's avoidable.

I'm just observant. I know my kids. I can tell them apart by how the way they walk sounds.

Also, I believe OZ was talking about the situation the OP brought up. Read the article.

airo wrote: Taking another human life is never an easy thing.

It shouldn't be.

airo wrote: I've read stories such as a man shooting an officer who was checking in on his home. He came home early from a vacation, and had asked the local PD to keep an eye on his home while he was away. The cop noticed activity in the house, and came closer to check it out. The man saw a man in his backyard, coming up on his bedroom's sliding glass door, his hand on what looked to be a pistol at his side. He opened fire before IDing his target, killing the police officer.

I wouldn't shoot anybody not in my house.

airo wrote: You have the ability to prevent bloodshed. Take it. Or do you honestly think that the man bent over rummaging through your stuff can turn around, break leather, and acquire you faster than you pull the trigger?

I do know that unless they have weapon in hand facing me, I would give a warning and a chance for them to surrender.

[airo]

I read the article. There's no "right" way to handle the situation. If you have two armed intruders in your house, one of which you don't know about until they're behind you with a gun drawn, you're f****d. That simple. You do what you can.

The guy who shot the cop got off. As he said, he saw a man advancing towards him and his wife, with what appeared to be a weapon at his side. He did what he felt he needed to too protect himself, and his loved one.

Quote: I do know that unless they have weapon in hand facing me, I would give a warning and a chance for them to surrender.

Sounds like you agree with everything i'm saying then.

[cplcarlman]

The problem is that you have to have situational awareness. If you have a guy under the gun, you have to position yourself so that you can view all entrances and exits into the room.

At any rate, the original story sounds like the guy had identified an intruder and was holding him at gunpoint. His "preventing bloodshed" ended up costing the guy his life as well as the lives of three generations of his family. He should have dropped the guy as soon as he was seen and then set up cover in a corner of the room.

As far as I am concerned, I would rather have one dead robber than one hair injured on one of my family members or myself.

[Lucky Luke]

OneZero wrote: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198299,00.html

Quote: One man arrested in last week's killings — James Stewart, 30 — was searching for the safe upstairs but found nothing and went downstairs, according to a probable cause affidavit filed Monday, the first detailed account of the incident. There he found that Magno Albarran, 29, had entered the house and pulled a gun on Desmond Turner, 28, whom authorities consider the main triggerman.

What do you do when something like this happens? You pull a gun on someone, thinking they're the only one there, and then his buddy shows up, also armed (interestingly these were ARMED burglars Lucky Luke.... shows that burglars DO in fact enter houses with guns) and you end up dead.

I probably would have shot the first guy and tried to take cover and shoot the second guy. I might have not made it but I would have taken one of the little b@st@rds with me.

OneZero you just don't get it, do you?

There are no armed burglars.

This is not a burglar, this is not a burglary, guess what it is?

Must I teach you everything?

:-D
:-D

[OneZero]

airo wrote: OneZero wrote: cplcarlman wrote: The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

Same here. A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff = dead bad guy.

Or your son looking for another $20 before he slips out for the night.

Well right now I don't HAVE a son who would be slipping out for the night so... ;-)

[OneZero]

airo wrote: perdidochas wrote: airo wrote: OneZero wrote: cplcarlman wrote: The main idea I take from what happened is that when he had the first criminal in his sights, he should have taken the shot. That would have allowed undivided attention to any remaining perps. After taking the shot, he should have taken a defensive position against a wall or behind cover for anyone else in the house responding to the sound of a gunshot.

If it had been in my house, the dude would have been ventilated very quickly.

Same here. A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff = dead bad guy.

Or your son looking for another $20 before he slips out for the night.

Onezero, said, and I quote "A hostile, unknown guy with a gun going through my stuff" His son going through his stuff would be a KNOWN guy. Also, read the article posted by the OP, which explains what OZ said.

Oh, i get it. Because in the middle of the night, big green lettering that reads "KNOWN" appears over people you know's heads.

No matter what, identify WHO you're firing at before you actually pull the trigger. THIS IS ONE OF THE CARDNIAL RULES OF FIREARM SAFETY.

(I bolded the important part.)

Oh definately, I would identify the target before I shot.