https://www.today.com/news/florida-...s-trying-surprise-t163987?cid=sm_npd_td_fb_ma
Poor guy didn’t realize he wasn’t in Norway anymore.
Poor guy didn’t realize he wasn’t in Norway anymore.
Norwegian man surprises father in law for birthday. Ends up 6 feet under.
- Thread starter hemightbejeremy
- Start date
Yeah, but a real man has to defend his home. None of this wussy 9-1-1 sh*t, right guys?
damn that really sucks. pretty crappy on the father-in-laws part for not being fully aware when he pulled out his gun.
Yeah it really sucks. But mistakes happen when amateurs think they should whip out their guns to 'defend' their home.
God forbid, they lock themselves in the bathroom and call 911.
seems like someone might have pranked them at the door earlier in the night. so when he did it, he got shot. i dont know why he felt the need to go outside and confront someone with a gun. stupid.
Every concealed weapons class that I’ve been to (a small sample admittedly) has stressed that you use your weapon for defense as a last resort only. So someone knocking on your door would certainly prompt a call to 911 rather than to go outside to shoot the person. Even if a guest in your house starts getting violent, you’re advised to retreat to the bedroom (assuming that you’re not abandoning your family to the violent person), call 911, and use your weapon only if the person presses their attack to your safe space.
This is slightly more complicated, though, because the FIL didn’t see anyone from in the house. While I would hope even he would agree that he should’ve just called 911 now, it’s not unusual for someone to hear knocking and open the door to see if anyone is out there. Armed or unarmed, that is a reasonable response. What should never happen is to get jumped outside of your own house by anyone.
Let’s play the hypothetical game: what happens if he got jumped not by an unarmed prankster but by a home invader who was armed. Would you still be condemning him for murder?
Yeah boy, that's exactly the way an armed home invader is going to act.
It's mindboggling the lengths that some people will go to actually defend stupidity like this.
Who defended anything? You also avoided the question.Yeah boy, that's exactly the way an armed home invader is going to act.
It's mindboggling the lengths that some people will go to actually defend stupidity like this.
YOU. Otherwise why share your little "hypothetical" in the first place?
Your question reminds me of that Geico Commerical which parodies a horror film and says, "when you're in a horror flick, you make bad decisions..."
WHY IN THE HELL WOULD A HOME OWNER GO INTO HIS YARD WITH A GUN WHEN THERE *MIGHT* BE AN ARMED HOME INTRUDER THERE??!?!
Read carefully: Call. 911. And. Wait.
You still didn’t answer my question. I’m guessing it’s because you don’t want to say that he’d be justified in self defense if he shot an actual attacker. And just like before, I’ll bet I can find a number of cases where attackers have knocked on the door and then attacked after the homeowner has opened the door. There’s a reason that so many people put peep holes in the doors, light up their entryways, have doorbell cameras, etc.
If everyone called 911 when they heard a noise at their door, the police would be responding to nothing but that all night long. I’m guessing that you’ve opened your door to check out a noise a time or two as well. I’m also guessing that you didn’t do it armed.
But guess what, it’s legal to be armed on your own property. It’s legal to go check out a noise outside of your front door while armed with a gun. It absolutely sucks that the son in law decided to prank the father in law that way and the father in law felt fear enough to shoot. Based upon the thin reporting, I can’t comment on whether that was justified or not so, no, I can’t defend him nor really critique his actions.
It’s a terrible event that could’ve been avoided by any one of a number of commonplace things, such as calling ahead to let them know that you’re stopping by, standing in plain view at the door so that you can be seen, maybe the homeowner announces that he’s armed and anyone outside should show themselves before he exits the house, and, yes, calling the police to do a safety check.
Yes I did. I said I wouldn't be STUPID enough to take a loaded gun into my backyard because someone pounded on my door at night.
I would NOT answer a pounding on my door late at night. I would look through my keyhole to see who it was. If no one was there. I'd leave it alone unless I heard MORE pounding on my door. That's when I would call 911.
If you actually believe the police would consider this type of response a 'nuisance call' and would prefer that I go outside my house in the dark and personally check out the situation with a loaded gun in hand, I'll gladly take that bet -- and your money.
I didn’t say that the police wouldn’t respond, I said that all they would do every night is respond to these if people started calling in noises outside.
You still didn’t answer my question but substituted one of your own to answer. Let me ask you a different question, do you believe in justifiable self defense?
Noises outside? The story said the son-in-law was pounding on the door!
It was impossible for me to answer your
"hypothetical" because I wouldn't have put myself and my family in danger by walking outside with a loaded gun.
https://myfox8.com/2019/09/03/mom-accidentally-shoots-daughter-surprising-her-from-college/
Do you think Mom is consoled by the fact the law considers this 'justifiable self defense'?
No, and the mom might very well have gone to jail in some jurisdictions (and I’m not counting New Jersey). Of course, for the very few mistaken identity shootings, I can go find many successful self defense shootings. I can also find many stories of people, especially women, who were helpless to prevent whatever their attacker wished to do because they had no means to equalize or escalate force and 911 wasn’t an option.
You also have chosen not to answer the simple question of if self defense is ever justified. You just keep pushing forward your emotional appeal. The sad truth is the people who are hurt most by gun control laws are those who are least able to equalize a threat of force without weapons, namely the elderly and women.
What you call 'emotional,' I call good, old-fashioned common sense.
First off, YES, self defense can be, and is, justified. But so what?
My point is that more people die from an accidental death (like our Norwegian) than by 'becoming a hero' with a 'justifiable homicide.' According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, In 2010, there were 606 unintentional shootings and 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen with a firearm, 8,275 criminal gun homicides, and 19,392 gun suicides
You’re leaving out one statistic; the Bureau of Justice places the count of times the presence of a gun has forestalled a crime at nearly 68,000 per year. That’s just those incidents that are actually reported and counted and are likely to be undercounted. But even taking the 68k as ground truth, I think it shows that the number of times that a gun has thwarted crime far surpasses the number of accidental shootings and actual defense shootings. Add to that the number of people who own firearms every single day without there being an accident, murder, shooting, or any other type of gun action that you want to bring out and that number is exceedingly statistically small.
It’s incredible to me that some people think this guy should receive no punishment whatsoever for his mistake but they feel Amber Guyger should receive more than 10 years for hers.
Both acts were beyond stupid. But this guy didn’t walk into the house next door and blast his neighbor.
I’m surprised they convicted Guyger of murder and not manslaughter. Especially when multiple residents testified that they’d gotten confused and tried to enter the wrong apartments too. However, Guyger’s story wasn’t consistent throughout the process and witness testimony didn’t back up her story. For example, she said that she loudly identified herself and warned the guy, but a neighbor said that he didn’t hear her say anything at all. Her story of where the guy she shot was in the room changed during the trial, early on nothing was between them and then later there was a couch between them. Given an aggressive prosecutor, all of that adds up to the jury convicting on a count which maybe never should’ve been in consideration in the first place.
If only our hero Democrats weren’t spending their time obsessing over impeachment - they could be passing awesome gun control laws that would prevent every incident like this!
One of the reasons I don't do this to my parents.
Regardless, the man she shot was in his own home. That's really the huge difference. He wasn't confused inside his own house ... she was confused outside of hers.
This is true but I feel that I need to state that it’s not that simple and there’s more to it than it just being your house. For example, he wouldn’t have had the right to kill her either just because she entered his house unless she posed a reasonable threat of deadly force. The interaction mattered. If she accidentally entered, he became hostile and started threatening to kill her and grabbed a weapon, and she established herself as police and ordered him to back down, and then he pressed the attack, she might’ve been justified. None of the witnesses reported that and evidence didn’t support that, hence the verdict.
I think this is why she got murder. I wasn't a juror, but that was the one thing that would cause me to say her 'confusion' wasn't going to save her ... in someone else's house who she thought was her own. As a Libertarian, I'm usually more lenient. But in someone else's home ... yeah, I could understand why she might not get manslaughter in the end.
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: ESPN opts out of MLB Contract option for 2026-2028
- Latest: Knight_Light
-
