92 year old WWII veteran kills intruder with rifle

[Bitware]

UPDATE: Interview with the victim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFiYkTCMXwc

ps - dont give me any shit for posting an alex jones link.

[1715163909]

1715163909

[payb.tc]

UPDATE: Interview with the victim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFiYkTCMXwc

ps - dont give me any shit for posting an alex jones link.

before i go ahead and click that link... which one is the victim?

[ElectricMucus]

Great event to spawn some nice libertarian circle-jerk.

There is more to come ITT, oh don't forget to thank the trolls there will be just the certain amount of them to keep the discussion going.

[myrkul]

Great event to spawn some nice libertarian circle-jerk.

There is more to come ITT, oh don't forget to thank the trolls there will be just the certain amount of them to keep the discussion going.

You're right. Thanks, ElectricMucus.

[kokojie]

FAKE, a single shot from a .22lr can't kill someone, it's a fact, lol.

[muyuu]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-92-year-old-kills-intruder-20120905,0,1703793.story

bravo... just ... bravo Sir!

what exactly do you applaud?

from what i gather from the linked articles, it was very likely an intentional killing solely for the protection of his property. he didnt determine if the robber was armed nor did he give any warning before shooting to kill. since he was 92y old one can argue in his defense that his options are very limited and anything but the most radical reaction might have endangered himself.
if however, that is not the case, killing someone to prevent a moderately severe crime, is immoral imho, especially if you have less radical options, like wound or apprehend the criminal.
at best its acceptable, but certainly nothing to compliment somebody on or be thrilled about. after all, its still a situation where someone got killed.

I think it's a lot better to make sure he's dead. Blow his brains out for good measure.

[hashman]

First, go look up what social capital means, comprehend the definition, then come tell me how THAT relates to an intruder forcing their way into my basement, kicking down my interior door, knowing that I am in there, and intending harm to anyone inside. Please be specific. Specificity is important when life and death is at stake.

Well thanks for providing that extra specific information which you had left out before.  Yes the details of "kicking down an interior door, knowing you are there, and intending to harm anyone inside"  do make a difference to your earlier statements, though they don't provide a clear story in my mind.  Why does this guy want to harm you?      

There's a lot to read about social capital, the wikipedia article seems not too far off my ideas on the subject, but in my opinion its just an idea to keep in mind and I'm not going to recommend devoting hours to study the concept.  One easy way to measure it in an area is to see how quickly you will be picked up when hitchhiking.  Japanese seem to have a very high level of it.  Often big cities lack in it.  Another way to measure social capital might be how quickly you are shot at when entering a home or how many locks and fences are up around the neighborhood.  

[foggyb]

he shot to kill the moment he saw the burglar. he didnt take a second to determine if the guy was armed. he didnt fire a warning shot or try to incapacitate him. afterwards he knew there was likely someone dying in his basement and didnt even bother to call the police.
how exactly is that still self defense?
and even in a case of self defense, killing an ordinary burglar isnt something to celebrate. its not like he just stopped hannibal lecter...

It's self defense because the intruder was in the guys home. Period. If you can't feel secure in your home, where can you feel secure? Again, one second of delay could cost you your life. After the guy kicked down the door, he could have easily pulled a pistol and shot the old man.

Warning shot? Attempt to incapacitate him? This isn't the movies.

If the guy wasn't inside someone else's home, he would still be alive. It's that simple.

You're right, it's no reason to celebrate, but the old man was justified to use lethal force.

I agree. Fornit, in real life things happen way quicker than in the movies. Hannibal Lector? Ordinary burglar? Doesn't matter. A threat is a threat. Does the guy need to want to eat your liver before you consider him a danger?

[RodeoX]

I can understand the people who are saying that there is nothing to applaud.  It is a sad situation all around.  However this a practical matter of defending yourself. Criminals who break into peoples homes know that they are risking death, this is why they try to target the weak and unarmed. This intruder should not be at all surprised to find himself dead taking on a man who has likely dropped the hammer on highly trained soldiers.
As far as shooting to wound, this should NEVER be done in a home defense scenario.  You should ALWAYS shoot for the heart and keep shooting until the gun is out of his hand. 

[Bitware]

I do not celebrate death.

I celebrate a Man standing his ground and using his rights when violated.

I celebrate law enforcement and prosecution honoring their oaths in this instance.

I celebrate the system actually working as its disseminated to us... working FOR The People, instead of against Us.

[muyuu]

I celebrate justice. This was just that.

[Bitware]

First, go look up what social capital means, comprehend the definition, then come tell me how THAT relates to an intruder forcing their way into my basement, kicking down my interior door, knowing that I am in there, and intending harm to anyone inside. Please be specific. Specificity is important when life and death is at stake.

Well thanks for providing that extra specific information which you had left out before.  Yes the details of "kicking down an interior door, knowing you are there, and intending to harm anyone inside"  do make a difference to your earlier statements, though they don't provide a clear story in my mind.  Why does this guy want to harm you?      

There's a lot to read about social capital, the wikipedia article seems not too far off my ideas on the subject, but in my opinion its just an idea to keep in mind and I'm not going to recommend devoting hours to study the concept.  One easy way to measure it in an area is to see how quickly you will be picked up when hitchhiking.  Japanese seem to have a very high level of it.  Often big cities lack in it.  Another way to measure social capital might be how quickly you are shot at when entering a home or how many locks and fences are up around the neighborhood.  

No offense but I could care less.


We need security and protection at home. We didnt use to. When I was a boy every house was unlocked. You just knocked and walked in if you are friends. If not, then you waited until they answered the door. There was very little crime.

Now people have a hard time surviving and many are not given the tools to succeed. So they attempt to deprive others of what they worked for and their lives to get what they need to survive.

All the BS that is forced upon us is not helping. Its hurting. Its intentional. Poor people are blaming people with money and we are all in the same boat. Some have better tools at their disposal - knowledge, skillsets, etc. to better survive, but in the end its no different than a crazed animal trying to hurt my family.

[Bjork]

I have no problem with killing in self defense or defense of others, but this case is a stretch.

Why couldn't he have yelled out "I've got a gun and I'm calling the police".  That and a couple warning shots and the guys woulda ran off.  If the guys would have continued to pursue--sure shoot them dead.  But there is really no need to "stalk" them like he did.

[myrkul]

I have no problem with killing in self defense or defense of others, but this case is a stretch.

Why couldn't he have yelled out "I've got a gun and I'm calling the police".  That and a couple warning shots and the guys woulda ran off.  If the guys would have continued to pursue--sure shoot them dead.  But there is really no need to "stalk" them like he did.

He sat in his chair and waited for the guy to kick down his door before shooting. Not what I call "stalking."

[Bjork]

I have no problem with killing in self defense or defense of others, but this case is a stretch.

Why couldn't he have yelled out "I've got a gun and I'm calling the police".  That and a couple warning shots and the guys woulda ran off.  If the guys would have continued to pursue--sure shoot them dead.  But there is really no need to "stalk" them like he did.

He sat in his chair and waited for the guy to kick down his door before shooting. Not what I call "stalking."

Why didn't he yell while the guy was kicking/banging on the door?  He could have diffused the situation, or at least tried, but instead gladly invited the conflict.  It is likely that the guy did not think anyone was home and had no intention to harm anyone.

[myrkul]

I have no problem with killing in self defense or defense of others, but this case is a stretch.

Why couldn't he have yelled out "I've got a gun and I'm calling the police".  That and a couple warning shots and the guys woulda ran off.  If the guys would have continued to pursue--sure shoot them dead.  But there is really no need to "stalk" them like he did.

He sat in his chair and waited for the guy to kick down his door before shooting. Not what I call "stalking."

Why didn't he yell while the guy was kicking/banging on the door?  He could have diffused the situation, or at least tried, but instead gladly invited the conflict.

The word you're looking for is defused, and you're neglecting the fact that the house had been broken into several times before. Shouting "boo" and scaring them off would only delay another attempt.

[Bjork]

I have no problem with killing in self defense or defense of others, but this case is a stretch.

Why couldn't he have yelled out "I've got a gun and I'm calling the police".  That and a couple warning shots and the guys woulda ran off.  If the guys would have continued to pursue--sure shoot them dead.  But there is really no need to "stalk" them like he did.

He sat in his chair and waited for the guy to kick down his door before shooting. Not what I call "stalking."

Why didn't he yell while the guy was kicking/banging on the door?  He could have diffused the situation, or at least tried, but instead gladly invited the conflict.

The word you're looking for is defused, and you're neglecting the fact that the house had been broken into several times before. Shouting "boo" and scaring them off would only delay another attempt.

So killing somebody is ok because they might commit a future crime?  And i don't think his house had been broken into before, just the neighbors.  Not that it matters anyways because we are not talking about the past or future, but this isolated incidence.


This is at best manslaughter, at worst murder.  Just because somebody commits a crime or a "wrong" does not immediately mean that he deserves the death penalty.  There is no evidence that the burglar intended violence and I feel that the old man had a responsibility to attempt stop the conflict before using deadly force.  Yelling/shouting at the burglars would have in no way put the man at risk.

[myrkul]

I have no problem with killing in self defense or defense of others, but this case is a stretch.

Why couldn't he have yelled out "I've got a gun and I'm calling the police".  That and a couple warning shots and the guys woulda ran off.  If the guys would have continued to pursue--sure shoot them dead.  But there is really no need to "stalk" them like he did.

He sat in his chair and waited for the guy to kick down his door before shooting. Not what I call "stalking."

Why didn't he yell while the guy was kicking/banging on the door?  He could have diffused the situation, or at least tried, but instead gladly invited the conflict.

The word you're looking for is defused, and you're neglecting the fact that the house had been broken into several times before. Shouting "boo" and scaring them off would only delay another attempt.

So killing somebody is ok because they might commit a future crime?  And i don't think his house had been broken into before, just the neighbors.  Not that it matters anyways because we are not talking about the past or future, but this isolated incidence.

No, killing someone for a possible future crime is not OK, but as you said, we're not talking about a future crime here, we're talking about him kicking down an elderly man's door and attempting to terrorize him. He was killed for that, not for anything he might have done in the future, or had done in the past.

And you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

The shooting followed a rash of break-ins at Jones' home in Verona. The break-ins had become such a problem that the Boone County Sheriff's Department recently installed a motion-activated security camera outside the home -- a camera that captured images of three men trying to break in that morning around 2 a.m.

[Bjork]

I have no problem with killing in self defense or defense of others, but this case is a stretch.

Why couldn't he have yelled out "I've got a gun and I'm calling the police".  That and a couple warning shots and the guys woulda ran off.  If the guys would have continued to pursue--sure shoot them dead.  But there is really no need to "stalk" them like he did.

He sat in his chair and waited for the guy to kick down his door before shooting. Not what I call "stalking."

Why didn't he yell while the guy was kicking/banging on the door?  He could have diffused the situation, or at least tried, but instead gladly invited the conflict.

The word you're looking for is defused, and you're neglecting the fact that the house had been broken into several times before. Shouting "boo" and scaring them off would only delay another attempt.

So killing somebody is ok because they might commit a future crime?  And i don't think his house had been broken into before, just the neighbors.  Not that it matters anyways because we are not talking about the past or future, but this isolated incidence.

No, killing someone for a possible future crime is not OK, but as you said, we're not talking about a future crime here, we're talking about him kicking down an elderly man's door and attempting to terrorize him. He was killed for that, not for anything he might have done in the future, or had done in the past.

And you might want to work on your reading comprehension.

The shooting followed a rash of break-ins at Jones' home in Verona. The break-ins had become such a problem that the Boone County Sheriff's Department recently installed a motion-activated security camera outside the home -- a camera that captured images of three men trying to break in that morning around 2 a.m.

I did not read the article in depth, merely skimmed it.

If the old man had woken up and the burglars were already inside, i 100% feel a shooting is justified at this point.  Lives are at risk and a conflict is unavoidable.  All I am saying is that the old man had some responsibility to defuse the conflict and he neglected to do so.

[myrkul]

I did not read the article in depth, merely skimmed it.

Might want to go back and actually read it...

"He kicked it hard and dang near knocked it off the hinges,” Jones said of the intruder's entrance through the cellar door

Dude was in the basement, and came up into his house proper by kicking the door down. How is that not "Lives are at risk and a conflict is unavoidable"?