<p>Good for him. Next time they probably would have killed him.</p>
<p>My mom mentioned this morning that a friends wife was being raped many, many years ago, in their home. He awakened by his wife’s screaming from another section of the house. He grabbed his gun and found the intruder ripping his wife’s clothes off. The assailant turned to flee, the husband shot him in the back. He was tried and convicted. Sad.</p>
<p>After Dr. Petitt’s story, I bought my first of 8 guns, received training, and became a member of a shooting range to practice weekly. I beefed up my home security system, bought gun locks, got my conceal carry license, and regularly run home invasion drills. Several of my colleagues have been the victims of home invasions since 2007 including one within the past 2 months. One doctor was prosecuted for using a bat to protect himself. Despite calling 911 five times, he chased the suspects off of his property and was convicted of assaulting them off of his property. If he had a gun and shot them on his property, as they were entering his house, no charges would have been filed. The laws are sick!</p>
<p>I can’t say that I will prevent a home invasion but I have done as much as I could to protect my family and for them to protect themselves. It is crazy that criminals are so brazen to attack people in their homes.</p>
<p>The doctor in Darby, Pennsylvania saved himself and likely others too by bringing his gun to work. I’m not surprised that a psychiatrist would carry a gun given the nature of their patient population. But having a gun was against hospital rules. I wonder if the hospital will penalize the doctor in any way, given that he is now a hero. </p>
<p>I abhor guns, and I think that people who want to carry them openly into Starbucks and the like are out of their minds, but I gotta say, when someone breaks into your home, all bets are off. I’m not even all that interested in the fine distinction of whether someone was shot in the front or back. If I were the judge and this case came in front of me, I’d lean towards some nominal punishment or fine. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The laws to have to be written to draw the line between “resisting a crime” and “vigilantism”. Different states draw the line in different places, particularly when situations like this come up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depending on the prevailing state laws, the prosecuting attorney could use that inclination if he/she has enough evidence such as your ignoring that fine distinction to launch a strong appeal and if he/she felt it was warranted, report you to the state judicial board for judicial misconduct by ignoring the relevant state laws. </p>
<p>Not that I’m not sympathetic to the victimized senior as I personally believe self-defense laws should account for the adrenaline rush of flight or fight and age and level of frailty of victim who invoked self-defense. </p>
<p>However, adding those factors in is likely to add to the complexity and thus increase the judicial backlog of criminal cases along with the fact in some states…especially in areas with high population densities, they do not want to encourage more gun use, especially off the property being defended where stray bullets could endanger nearby bystanders on the streets/in their homes. </p>
<p>Deleted </p>
<p>“Seriously? In what state? I don’t know of any state where sentencing guidelines make the death penalty an option for burglary or assault. This is the problem with assessing individual cases in an emotional state. Have you heard the adage that hard cases make bad law?”</p>
<p>I’m not saying that the state should carry out the death penalty for burglary or assault. But I do think that if you break into someone’s home, assault, threaten and rob them…that homeowner may carry out the sentence on you. And it very well may be warranted.</p>
<p>I think it’s self defense, if he didn’t have the gun, he would be dead.</p>
<p>I am sure this thread will head in the direction of finding fault with the use of a firearm given any circumstance.
Clearly there has to be consideration for placing any non participants in harms way, and that cannot be given a pass in any regard. Having said that if no innocent bystanders were injured and you took someone out who either just attempted to rape your wife or caused significant injury to a loved one or yourself. (whether fleeing or not) I say Not Guilty, next, lets move along. Way to much time and effort and resources are devoted to the defense of these criminals. There cannot be a “thats okay safety net” for every one who makes the choice to commit a crime, and especially so when they physically harm others. </p>
<p>Quotes from the gene pool:</p>
<p>“The lady didn’t run as fast as the man so I shot her in the back twice” ~ Tom Greer</p>
<p>“Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.” ~ Tolkien</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he had shot them while they were in the house and wasn’t clear about their intentions/were threatening him directly, yes. </p>
<p>However, the moment they fled and were already OFF HIS PROPERTY and in a public alley, they no longer would be considered an “imminent threat” under most self-defense laws. </p>
<p>Not to mention his problematic public admission he deliberately shot the burglar a second time after the pregnancy pleading after she was already wounded to “send a message” to her crime partner. </p>
<p>This admission undermines the possibility of citing the adrenaline fight or flight or fear as explanations for his action here as that admission indicated he had a deliberate motive to shoot the fleeing burglar a second time after she was already wounded. </p>
<p>That admission could also give some who saw/read the interview an impression he was deliberately acting the part of an executioner and was a bit cold-blooded about it. </p>
<p>While I understand he’s angry, that’s going to elicit mixed reactions from some and greatly complicate the job of whoever serves as his defense attorney or sympathetic cops/prosecutors who now have to investigate and justify their actions in light of his public statements in that interview. </p>
<p>I’ll remember to think of Gollum if someone is brutally attacking me or my family.</p>
<p>There was no guarantee that these 2 thugs won’t come back to kill him later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The judge/prosecutor would then ask, why didn’t you call the cops right after the burglars fled and take precautions by securing the property and/or going to neighbor’s to await the cops’ arrival? </p>
<p>Why put yourself in greater danger by chasing them off your property and into an alleyway which was not part of his property?</p>
<p>Also, if he/cops knew they burglarized his home before, identifying them wouldn’t be as much of an issue. </p>
<p>It is only a matter of time before this thread turns into an anti gun campaign.</p>
<p>Yeah, well, I’m anti-gun but I still say yay for this guy. </p>
<p>“It is only a matter of time before this thread turns into an anti gun campaign.”</p>
<p>No doubt.</p>
<p>I am always amazed by those who think people are like unemotional androids. Who can’t believe it when a cop gets scared and reacts poorly. Or that a soldier can shoot the wrong person, when gunfire is coming at them from all directions. That someone in a home invasion gets amped up and doesn’t perfectly assess the situation and only use the sufficient amount of force.</p>
<p>It’s like these people have never had the experience of cold, dead fear. For some, it is paralyzing. For others, they spring into action and anything can happen. The bad guys count on most people being terrified, and not having a gun.</p>
<p>You can be pro-gun and not in favor of shooting fleeing scum bags</p>