Unfortunately, people who have been drinking usually aren't thinking that clearly.
I'm pretty sure there's no legal limit on how much a person can drink. Drink and drive yes. Drink, no.
That being said, if I were in Texas, or some other state where the number of people carrying guns was very high, I'd be extra-cautious. I definitely wouldn't ring someone's doorbell and ask for directions. I certainly would have my cell phone, etc.
However, the valuable lesson here is the same mentality should apply in Amherst.
I feel terribly for the family of the victim, but his death won't be in vain. This is a *valuable* lesson for the population at large to be *EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS*. That is to say, if you make a mistake you could end up dead, so be careful! Before you talk to your neighbor or have any discussion with people stop and think to yourself, "This person could have a gun and kill me."
Just assume that the person you are talking to is armed and dangerous. After all that's everyone's right.
Last edited by Genoobie; May 6th, 2010 at 06:46 AM. Reason: adding material
Unfortunately, people who have been drinking usually aren't thinking that clearly.
Ya. I call BS. Which is what I do on most of your posts.
Care to provide a link?
A gang of 4 men break into a 2 story home via the front door, which is right in front of the stairs to the 2nd floor. A family of four is supposed to gather themselves in the middle of the night and somehow run downstairs past the group of men and outside...all the while calling the Police.
Man you are a twit....
Check Out My Blog
www.creedthoughts.gov.www\creedthoughts
eminent domain.
If somebody is in my house with my wife and kids....I am going to be in the papers.
If they want my TV take it.. it is not worth the court, lawyers etc etc.
Then again my shepherd wouldn't let it go that far.
Article 35 of the penal code
from 35.20
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.
Vote for freedom, not political parties.
Politicians need to cut spending
thanks for the heads up
Willful ignorance is the downfall of every major empire in history.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao, 1938
The home-owner will not face criminal charges. There are a lot of questions that i have. An unarmed person was shot to death. There were no independent witnesses. The word of the home-owner is accepted as fact. The laws regarding these types of incidents just seem so weird to me. I never realized the law permitted the use of deadly force even if your life was not in danger. As the law is written, I can kill someone if I catch them stealing a bike out of my garage. Perfectly legal. There is no need for witnesses. I just tell authorities that I came upon this individual committing a burglary on my property and i exercised my legal right to apply deadly force to stop this crime. Case closed.
However, trained police officers witnessing all manners of theft, rape, violence, etc. are held to a much different standard. Their parameters for the application of deadly force is highly restricted. Essentially they can use deadly force only as an absolute last resort. Untrained citizens don't have that restriction. The law says that the penalty for stealing a toaster out of someone's house is death (if the owner catches you). It all seems very incongruous to me. And this is not about gun ownership and self defense. I don't feel good about this case. And I sincerely have empathy for the home-owner. It is so sad for everyone involved.
staling is stealing.
regardless of its value,
And whos to say he was there to rob the house? Maybe he was there to rape? Murder? and then set the house on fire? Gonna wait till your face to face with this person?
Now we know that probably wasnt the intent but how was the home owner supposed to know that?
Willful ignorance is the downfall of every major empire in history.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao, 1938
It seems weird to me that some people are so stupid.
It was 1:30am and the guy was in his house. From the back door, through a couple of rooms to the stairwell.
Did you want him to ask..."Hey mister, are you here to kill me and rape my wife or are you just in the wrong place?"
Only an idiot compares what happened in this case to someone stealing a bike.
Check Out My Blog
www.creedthoughts.gov.www\creedthoughts
I'm not stupid, nor do i think people who disagree with me are stupid. When you resort to name-calling, it reflects badly on you.
So apparently, your position on this is to shoot first, and ask questions later.
Are there many cases in Amherst, NY where unknown assailants break into random occupied homes in the middle of the night and pillage, rape and murder? And as far as comparing this case to someone stealing a bike, as far as the law is concerned, there is no difference.
Can you go beyond conventional wisdom for a moment? Can you conceive of any other way this could have played out? We're talking about taking a human life here? Maybe lock yourself in your bedroom or a bathroom? The police had pulled up when the shot was fired. Perhaps they could have taken care of it? Or do you think that the prudent thing for someone living in Amherst Ny is to keep a loaded gun by your bed and if ANYONE enters your home in the middle of the night, you should eliminate any possible threat to you or your family by killing the intruder?
The occupant warned the guy and got no apparent response - time is up at that point - shoot first - pray later.
Just because the guy was drunk does not eliminate the possibility that he entered the home with malice. Altemio Sanchez was described by his neighbors and co-workers as " pleasant and congenial."
If the guy had gotten into a car and killed himself by running into a tree no one would excuse him or blame the tree.
I'm not a liberal, and I am in favor of private gun ownership. Why are you people so afraid? Why do you live in such fear? Do you live in fear in your own home? Suppose the home-owner in Amherst did not have a gun? Are you saying he would be dead now? Of course not. Many of the people I know who own guns are big, strong individuals who could easily handle a stumblin' drunk without killing the guy. That illustration of that sign would not accurately portray my position on this matter.
I understand your position, I do, fully.
Something MOST around here FAIL miserably to grasp is the toll that this man is dealing with as far as taking someone elses life.
Maybe Ryan will chirp in here, I believe HE has seen combat... or maybe one of the officers on here...
What I am getting at is, when you take the life of another, regardless of the situation it weighs upon you. Maybe not so much if your in combat, but in your own country... that dreaded 'what if'
Not to mention the whole what others think about the situation.
Its very difficult and I would NOT be surprised if Mr Home Owner is in counselling or will be in counselling, or wether his marriage takes a crap...
Its not like in the movies.
When a LEO takes the life of a POS on the street, the PD takes his gun away and sends him to counselling, there is a reason for that...
Was deady force required? maybe, maybe not. We will never know, we can only assume.
but look on the bright side, as tragic as this incident was, it sends a VERY CLEAR messege to all would be villains, that Amherst residents are ,armed, and are prepared to defend themselves with deadly force.
Willful ignorance is the downfall of every major empire in history.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao, 1938
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)