<p>First of all, I love how the UK press just adores American “news”. Also, the fact that the wrestler was “borderline ashamed”, probably because it was all so easy for him. No mention of whether this occurred on his property or not but clearly, he was NOT in his house when the guy appeared. Putting your skills to good use, I say!</p>
<p>The title should read: “WWE superstar Daniel Bryan puts burglar who broke into his home in chokehold until police arrive”</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that a younger person wouldnt have done the same? Criminals that break into a home and beat up the owner who has access to a gun are going to face similar circumstances.</p>
<p>momsquad. I’ll enlighten you about my process. </p>
<p>Laying in wait is exactly what didn’t happen here. Nor did he stalk them a day later. I think there is room for justifying his shooting at them without requiring him to be dead before its allowed. That’s my view of it. And I don’t think its necessary for him to get them to face him. I suspect if he had been quick enough to get in front of them, he would have. :)</p>
<p>I never understood this logic. They already assaulted him and proved they have no issue hurting him. What if they turned around and shot at him? Therefore, all these other technicalities are for silly people being Monday morning quarterbacks. I bet you one thing - his house will no longer be a target for burglary. Problem completely solved forever.</p>
<p>It is rather unlikely that the victim or police knew that at the time of the incident, although if that was the case, it may have been discovered afterward due to stolen property found on the suspect(s) or at their home(s). Note that news reports indicate that the victim had been burgled before several times, and the suspects had records, but do not state that the suspects have been connected to the previous burglaries of the same victim.</p>
<p>Even in a place like California or Texas (which are relatively lenient on the use of deadly force to resist a crime being committed or attempted – note that California is the state where the incident occurred), shooting a fleeing suspect in the back enters into a gray area at best.</p>
<p>“I know many 80+ individuals, and very, very few of them are suffering from dementia.”</p>
<p>My reference to dementia was in the context of his age in addition to his comments after the shooting. He bragged to news media about shooting the woman in the back after she pleaded for mercy and claimed to be pregnant. No one would have known of her pregnancy claim if he hadn’t brought it up, but he mentioned it as though he was proud that the possibility didn’t stop him from exacting his revenge. Loss of empathy is a common early symptom of dementia.</p>
<p>My grandfather lived in East Oakland for more than 50 years, well into his 90’s. He was a frequent target of neighborhood “opportunists” who took advantage of his age and frailty to rob him and burglarize his home. We begged him to move but he refused. Finally we had security bars put on the windows and entrances and the problem stopped. Perhaps if he’d had a gun he could have taken out of few of the crooks and sent a message to the neighborhood. I’m glad we found a different solution.</p>
<p>At 14, my buddy and I walked into a burglary in progress at his apartment. </p>
<p>Not much we could do even if we were allowed to have guns considering both burglars were armed and they were pointing their pistols at our heads. Both burglars looked angry as the apartment was already in an extremely cluttered state and my friend and his family had practically nothing worth stealing. They also tried looking through our pockets and found zip. Both ended up leaving empty-handed while cursing loudly. </p>
<p>When the local cops had us look at lineups, turned out the burglars were well-known to the cops as their photos were on the second page and later on, we found they also caught them on apartment surveillance tape. </p>
<p>It was only later I realized the lack of any loot actually placed us both at greater risk for being murdered out of anger. Sometimes, there are benefits to being naive enough to not realize the gravity of danger we were in even given the fact I had experience being mugged multiple times in my old NYC neighborhood from elementary school onward and I lost an elementary school friend to a crossfire between 2 drug gangs while walking home from his junior high school. </p>
<p>I find laws which delegate a “duty to retreat” in one’s OWN HOME before being allowed to protect oneself or one’s family against an intruder to be completely outrageous. I don’t get the concept of giving law breaking intruders more rights in another person’s home than the resident. I don’t have a gun, but if I did and someone broke into my home, I would not wait to see if he would actually try to harm my children or just intended to rob us blind before I used it.</p>
<p>I agree that this particular situation has some room for questioning the homeowner’s actions. However, I suspect that his past victimizations probably contributed to his state of mind at the time and I can understand that this combined with the beating he had just endured might well explain his behavior. A decent defense lawyer will argue this, probably with success.</p>
<p>I agree. In public, that is different. In one’s home, that concept is outrageous. We are more vulnerable in our homes because outsiders arent aware what is going on (the Petit family comes to mind). Any intruder that appears to be leaving may really just be going to get a better weapon…or may be going to grab a pricey item that captured his eye…or may be going to your child’s room to use the child as a hostage…</p>
<p>even a criminal who says that he is leaving cant be believed. This criminal claimed to be pregnant…not. </p>
<p>When you are “standing your ground” in public, you are really standing your ground in a very limited amount of space…imagine about a 100 sq ft area. When in your own home, the entire home should be “your ground” in which you have the right to “stand your ground”.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Shooting someone in the back does not necessarily mean the person is fleeing…see above. </p>
<p>Sally - sorry, that was the story at the time. It came out later that she wasn’t. Not that it makes one iota of difference to me either way. I hated the breathless way the news reported it - oh, the poor thing. Gag. </p>
<p>To those who say, “But they were fleeing!”: they could have fled when he came home and interrupted them in the act. Instead they beat him into what they thought was submission, and continued their crime. In fact, it was apparently the woman who continued to beat him while the guy returned to trying to break into the safe. If he had shot at burglars who fled at the sight or sound of him and were already outside his house and there had been no confrontation, I would have less sympathy for him. </p>
<p>PG, I know. ALL the initial coverage on this was seemingly created with click bait in mind. Too bad a lot of us didn’t fall for the idea of baby-as-human-shield (or baby-as-excuse). It made me gag too.</p>
<p>No jury is going to convict someone who was terrified, beaten up and elderly. His atty could argue that since he was likely hit in the head a few times and terrified that “thinking clearly” wasn’t possible. The DA knows all this and likely wont pursue this. </p>
<p>I would venture to say that if a DA pursues this there will be such outrage that a new law passed rather promptly. </p>