92 year old WWII veteran kills intruder with rifle

[Bjork]

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"?

He had time to wait with his gun before the man was inside.  Obviously if he sat and did nothing (like he did) a conflict would occur.  But prior to the man entering the house, the conflict was still avoidable.

[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"?

He had time to wait with his gun before the man was inside.  Obviously if he sat and did nothing (like he did) a conflict would occur.  But prior to the man entering the house, the conflict was still avoidable.

The guy was already in his house. Unless you don't consider the basement part of his house?

he heard someone scuffling around in his basement

Again, please read the entire article before arguing about it.

[sippsnapp]

From one perspective he surely could have tried to diffuse the situation but only by taking a risk. I have seen way to many movies where somebody was killed because he has seen to much for example.
I mean srsly, consider you wake up at night and somebody is already in your house! What i would do is grab the best weapon and wait in a dark corner, but i would not give a noise, hell i dont even know if i would give a noise to call police, maybe dail the number and mumble the address xD.

[Bjork]

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"?

He had time to wait with his gun before the man was inside.  Obviously if he sat and did nothing (like he did) a conflict would occur.  But prior to the man entering the house, the conflict was still avoidable.

The guy was already in his house. Unless you don't consider the basement part of his house?

he heard someone scuffling around in his basement

Again, please read the entire article before arguing about it.

no, the burglar was in the basement and the man in "the rest of the house", separated by a locked door.  They were not in "the same space".  But clearly you don't want to argue the ethics of this and only want to discuss red herrings and ad hominems which I would rather not.

[Bjork]

From one perspective he surely could have tried to diffuse the situation but only by taking a risk. I have seen way to many movies where somebody was killed because he has seen to much for example.
I mean srsly, consider you wake up at night and somebody is already in your house! What i would do is grab the best weapon and wait in a dark corner, but i would not give a noise, hell i dont even know if i would give a noise to call police, maybe dail the number and mumble the address xD.

Yes, to anyone who isn't being intentionally dense this is obvious.  The question is whether or not he is obligated to do this, that's really up in the air but personally I would say he is.

[myrkul]

no, the burglar was in the basement and the man in "the rest of the house", separated by a locked door.  They were not in "the same space".  But clearly you don't want to argue the ethics of this and only want to discuss red herrings and ad hominems which I would rather not.

What red herrings and ad hominems? Saying you're arguing from ignorance is not an ad hominem, it's saying you're arguing from ignorance. As far as ethics go, it's clear. The guy kicked down the door. Let me repeat that: The guy kicked down the door. That makes his intentions very clear. He wanted a confrontation. He just picked the wrong old dude to try and terrorize.

[Bjork]

 The guy kicked down the door. He wanted a confrontation.

This is just simply not true.  It is possible (and likely) that the burglar thought the house was empty

Anyways, I need to go eat.

[myrkul]

 The guy kicked down the door. He wanted a confrontation.

This is just simply not true.  It is possible (and likely) that the burglar thought the house was empty

Anyways, I need to go eat.

Please stop showing your ignorance.

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

Enjoy your meal. Maybe read the article while you eat, so you'll be arguing from a position of knowledge when you come back.

[fornit]

and while we are at it: its probably a coincidence that this is one of the few articles that fails to mention he waited in that chair for 15 minutes for the burglars to come out of the basement and said he had hoped the other guys would climb up the stairs, too.

as far as ethics go: self-defense my ass...

[myrkul]

and while we are at it: its probably a coincidence that this is one of the few articles that fails to mention he waited in that chair for 15 minutes for the burglars to come out of the basement and said he had hoped the other guys would climb up the stairs, too.

as far as ethics go: self-defense my ass...

Right... waiting until the intruder makes his intent clear certainly removes all question of it being self-defense. 

Might want to look up "castle doctrine."

[gyverlb]

The fact that people prefer to kill someone when in doubt is just sick.

This kind of mentality leads to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

The 92 year old could have shot through the door, which would have given him an overwhelming advantage. Even if the burglar was stupid enough to continue his attempt after this first shot (assuming he was still able to) he would have been at least injured and entering a room blindly where someone was waiting for him gun in hand. The old man chose to kill although he didn't have to. People advocating that you shouldn't take any risk may consider the following :

• the old man couldn't know that the burglar was alone: the first one to enter had no chance but if the 2 other accomplices were behind him armed and willing to avenge the first one, he'd probably be dead. A warning shot from a safe place (behind a closed door in an open area while the intruders are stuck in narrow stairs) is far safer. A "military man" knows this.
• if suspicion of intent of harm is enough for you to kill without warning, don't complain if you live in a world where your neighbors kill you because you did look at them the wrong way

[myrkul]

The fact that people prefer to kill someone when in doubt is just sick.

This kind of mentality leads to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

The 92 year old could have shot through the door, which would have given him an overwhelming advantage. Even if the burglar was stupid enough to continue his attempt after this first shot (assuming he was still able to) he would have been at least injured and entering a room blindly where someone was waiting for him gun in hand. The old man chose to kill although he didn't have to. People advocating that you shouldn't take any risk may consider the following :

• the old man couldn't know that the burglar was alone: the first one to enter had no chance but if the 2 other accomplices were behind him armed and willing to avenge the first one, he'd probably be dead. A warning shot from a safe place (behind a closed door in an open area while the intruders are stuck in narrow stairs) is far safer. A "military man" knows this.
• if suspicion of intent of harm is enough for you to kill without warning, don't complain if you live in a world where your neighbors kill you because you did look at them the wrong way

1) If his accomplices were behind him, he would have fallen into them. Probably dragged them down the stairs with him. A military man can also fire three shots just as fast as the assholes come in the door. Either way, he picked his firing position well.
2) If I kick in someone's door, I'm not going to be surprised if I get shot. That's not "suspicion of intent" that's "expression of intent." Again, look up castle doctrine. It's his house. It has nothing to do with looking at your neighbors funny.

[fornit]

and while we are at it: its probably a coincidence that this is one of the few articles that fails to mention he waited in that chair for 15 minutes for the burglars to come out of the basement and said he had hoped the other guys would climb up the stairs, too.

as far as ethics go: self-defense my ass...

Right... waiting until the intruder makes his intent clear certainly removes all question of it being self-defense. 

Might want to look up "castle doctrine."

yeah, i know that one.
it basically says if you have the option to
a) walk away
or
b) kill somebody
do whatever the fuck you want.

and thats exactly what old guy did. whatever the fuck he wanted. yay celebrations! our hero!

i think i am just missing the connection to both self-defense and ethics...

[gyverlb]

1) If his accomplices were behind him, he would have fallen into them. Probably dragged them down the stairs with him.

This isn't a movie. Usually people don't jump into others when shot in the heart...

A military man can also fire three shots just as fast as the assholes come in the door. Either way, he picked his firing position well.

So there was no need for him to have the element of surprise to defend himself. Glad you agree with me...

2) If I kick in someone's door, I'm not going to be surprised if I get shot. That's not "suspicion of intent" that's "expression of intent."

I know a guy that had a drink too many and mistook his neighbor's house for his own and kicked the front door open. Luckily he lives in a country where you only have to answer to your crimes not imaginary ones. He's even lucky that his neighbors were understanding and didn't end up in a court of law only paying for the damage and then some. By your standards this guy should be dead.

Again, look up castle doctrine. It's his house. It has nothing to do with looking at your neighbors funny.

I don't care for the castle doctrine it's your laws, not mine. Look at my original link, I'm referring to the general attitude and its consequences. If you want to be considered a band of savages that kill each other at the earliest opportunity and must own a gun to feel safe that's your problem, not mine.

[myrkul]

1) If his accomplices were behind him, he would have fallen into them. Probably dragged them down the stairs with him.

This isn't a movie. Usually people don't jump into others when shot in the heart...

A military man can also fire three shots just as fast as the assholes come in the door. Either way, he picked his firing position well.

So there was no need for him to have the element of surprise to defend himself. Glad you agree with me...

2) If I kick in someone's door, I'm not going to be surprised if I get shot. That's not "suspicion of intent" that's "expression of intent."

I know a guy that had a drink too many and mistook his neighbor's house for his own and kicked the front door open. Luckily he lives in a country where you only have to answer to your crimes not imaginary ones. He's even lucky that his neighbors were understanding and didn't end up in a court of law only paying for the damage and then some. By your standards this guy should be dead.

Again, look up castle doctrine. It's his house. It has nothing to do with looking at your neighbors funny.

I don't care for the castle doctrine it's your laws, not mine. Look at my original link, I'm referring to the general attitude and its consequences. If you want to be considered a band of savages that kill each other at the earliest opportunity and must own a gun to feel safe that's your problem, not mine.

There's so much idiocy here, I almost don't know where to start. I guess the beginning is as good as anywhere else.

Read the article. It states he fell backwards, down the stairs. Ergo, if his accomplices were on the stairs, he would have fallen into them. Movie physics not required, real physics work just fine.

He didn't need the element of surprise, the assailant tried to get it by kicking down the door. He'd already failed, however, by being an idiot in the basement.

Your drunken friend is very lucky he lives in a criminal safety zone. I an glad to hear he repaid the damages to his neighbor's door. In my world, this is all that should happen, but his demise certainly can happen. Maybe don't get so drunk you don't know your own house? Personal responsibility.

The general attitude is that a person's property is theirs, and you shouldn't fuck with it. The consequences are that if you fuck with other people's property, you could end up hurt. Looking at someone funny is not fucking with their property. If you don't trust your neighbors to be armed, and need to take their guns away to feel safe, that's your problem, not mine.

Might want to look up "castle doctrine."

yeah, i know that one.

No, I don't think you do.

Maybe you should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

[grondilu]

Though I am a supporter of gun ownership and the right to defend one's home, I do also believe this story is a bit stretched indeed.  This guy was probably in his own right to self defense, but I do not like the way people say he's a hero or something.

He should have shot a warning shot.  The japanese case mentionned above proves that honest mistakes can happen.

Also, what's stopping us to think that the guy was kind of happy of the idea that a burgler entered his house, so that he could enjoyed the manhunt and the kill?  It's not as if the presence of a stranger in your house should give you a total license to kill.   I'm ok to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, considering his advanced age (he probably could not think as fast as a young man) and all...  But felicitations?  Honors?  I don't think so.  Though it's not a crime, it's not really a good example either, as it is not the wisest use of a gun, to say the least.


«  Hum, I haven't recently heard of this old man who lives nearby.  Maybe I should check he's ok.  Oh, the door is loose.  "Mr xXXX??"  Damned, Why am I shouting his name?  I recall the old man doesn't hear anything.  I think I hear some footsteps in the stairs.  Oh, here he is!  Hello.... hang on, what does he hold in his han....  BANG!! »

[gyverlb]

There's so much idiocy here

You know the other party can't use reason very well when they resort to personal attack to "prove" a point.
I'll make an honest attempt to answer with sound arguments one last time.

I almost don't know where to start. I guess the beginning is as good as anywhere else.

Read the article. It states he fell backwards, down the stairs. Ergo, if his accomplices were on the stairs, he would have fallen into them. Movie physics not required, real physics work just fine.

Like a man nearly dead on his knees falling down the stairs is the same as making two other men fall with him. Did you really think it through?

He didn't need the element of surprise, the assailant tried to get it by kicking down the door. He'd already failed, however, by being an idiot in the basement.

It seems you didn't follow me, so let's make it clear. If he didn't need the element of surprise, he didn't need to shoot to kill. In my book when you don't need to kill and you kill anyway it's wrong. Maybe it's just me...

Your drunken friend

Never said it was a friend, please try to follow what others say instead of pushing your point of view blindly.

is very lucky he lives in a criminal safety zone. I an glad to hear he repaid the damages to his neighbor's door. In my world, this is all that should happen, but his demise certainly can happen. Maybe don't get so drunk you don't know your own house? Personal responsibility.

Being drunk is not the smartest thing, but being killed for it seems a little over the top to me.

The general attitude is that a person's property is theirs, and you shouldn't fuck with it.

Sorry "fuck with it"? Doesn't seem to describe well what you can and can't do before being killed. I don't plan to have sex with any other person's property, am I safe? Seriously, using such language to describe the situation only shows inner violence and can't be used to have a serious discussion (we are speaking about people's lives, so I'm quite serious).

The consequences are that if you fuck with other people's property, you could end up hurt. Looking at someone funny is not fucking with their property. If you don't trust your neighbors to be armed, and need to take their guns away to feel safe, that's your problem, not mine.

I don't have to, in my country my neighbors don't have the right to bear (usable) arms in their home (and in most places) unless they demonstrate a special need for it. If they like to shoot at things they go to a shooting range.

[myrkul]

There's so much idiocy here

You know the other party can't use reason very well when they resort to personal attack to "prove" a point.
I'll make an honest attempt to answer with sound arguments one last time.

Sadly, you failed, starting right here. Learn to differentiate between a personal attack, "You're an idiot" and an attack on your arguments "They are idiotic." Not being able to do so makes you look like an idiot.

I almost don't know where to start. I guess the beginning is as good as anywhere else.

Read the article. It states he fell backwards, down the stairs. Ergo, if his accomplices were on the stairs, he would have fallen into them. Movie physics not required, real physics work just fine.

Like a man nearly dead on his knees falling down the stairs is the same as making two other men fall with him. Did you really think it through?

Clearly you've never had to carry an unconscious person. Your average human being weighs ~160lb (72.5 kg). That's a lot of mass to catch coming down the stairs. Remember that I said: "he would have fallen into them. Probably dragged them down the stairs with him." Certainly, it would not have helped their ascent, would it?

He didn't need the element of surprise, the assailant tried to get it by kicking down the door. He'd already failed, however, by being an idiot in the basement.

It seems you didn't follow me, so let's make it clear. If he didn't need the element of surprise, he didn't need to shoot to kill. In my book when you don't need to kill and you kill anyway it's wrong. Maybe it's just me...

Not needing the element of surprise and not needing to shoot to kill are two different things. Just because he had the drop on him does not mean that the invader would not have remained a deadly threat if simply wounded.

Your drunken friend

Never said it was a friend, please try to follow what others say instead of pushing your point of view blindly.

is very lucky he lives in a criminal safety zone. I an glad to hear he repaid the damages to his neighbor's door. In my world, this is all that should happen, but his demise certainly can happen. Maybe don't get so drunk you don't know your own house? Personal responsibility.

Being drunk is not the smartest thing, but being killed for it seems a little over the top to me.

He (the drunken man you know who you stress is not your friend) would not have been killed for being drunk, but for entering someone else's property.

The general attitude is that a person's property is theirs, and you shouldn't fuck with it.

Sorry "fuck with it"? Doesn't seem to describe well what you can and can't do before being killed. I don't plan to have sex with any other person's property, am I safe? Seriously, using such language to describe the situation only shows inner violence and can't be used to have a serious discussion (we are speaking about people's lives, so I'm quite serious).

Would "mess with" or "interfere with" or "attempt to damage or steal" have been better? I thought you capable of understanding idiom. Apparently I was incorrect. My apologies, I will not make that mistake in the future.

The consequences are that if you fuck with other people's property, you could end up hurt. Looking at someone funny is not fucking with their property. If you don't trust your neighbors to be armed, and need to take their guns away to feel safe, that's your problem, not mine.

I don't have to, in my country my neighbors don't have the right to bear (usable) arms in their home (and in most places) unless they demonstrate a special need for it. If they like to shoot at things they go to a shooting range.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. They do have that right, rights are not determined by words on paper. The right is not recognized, and therefore is being violated, but they still have it.

[interlagos]

It's easy to judge the old man when the outcome is already known. While choosing his defense tactics he certainly didn't know whether he would survive the attack or not, nobody would know that. He chose the one he thought would give him a better chance and he won. So yes, there is something to celebrate here - the elderly home owner came out alive and the intruder is dead.

Now if you live in the society where violent crimes and home intrusions are unheard of then, yes, using deadly weapon wouldn't be the first thing you do, you probably wouldn't have a weapon in the first place.
But unfortunately we are not there yet, especially taking into account that the intrusion in question wasn't the first one, the old man's actions are justified.

[muyuu]

Some awesomeness:


http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/zou1m/men_display_pictures_of_dead_cops_on_their/
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/photos-dead-police-officer-posted-outside-tennessee-farm-220517988.html

Two brothers who shot and killed a sheriff's deputy have placed photos of the slain lawman outside the entrance of their farm, calling it a "warning" to other law enforcement officials.

From the comments:

Mit Gott  •  7 hrs ago
Having lived in Roane County for decades I am more familiar with this case and can share some information on this case. There was a long time vendetta going on here both personal and professional. Law officers had been harassing the Houstons and provoking them for years before this incident took place. Way too much history to cover every minutia of every detail. But understand the Houstons had brought charges against officers due to the harassment and provocations leveled at them prior to this. This all bringing this to a head.
Before I get into the incident itself, I beg to explain that law enforcement in Roane county has a long history of corruption, (this can be searched and verified on the internet). And there is a tendency in Roane County to often issue warrants based on virtually anything including complete falsehoods and even lacking any evidence of any crime being committed at all. You can say anything (slander) about almost anyone and a warrant will be written.
Then virtually you are considered guilty and libeled until you hire an attorney to prove you innocent if you're lucky. Now on top of this the law enforcement offices have been plagued with corruption and excessive force over the decades I lived there. Case in example was the infamous case of a prior Roane County Sheriff who participated in the state's largest bust of a marijuana manufacturing farm and was later caught in a Federal sting operation trying to resale a very large portion of the same harvested marijuana. I won't mention his name as that was almost 30 years ago and he has served his time for that.
Now I digress going back to the case in point. Witnesses testified insinuations and threats were made by deputy Jones that he was prepared to use deadly force on Rocky when he got a chance to do so. Eye witnesses and evidence were presented in court that Rocky Houston was sitting unarmed on his porch eating from a can of peaches when the patrol car with Jones and Brown inside approached. The first shots came from deputy Jones service pistol leaving casings over twenty feet before the patrol car came to a stop. Rockey was able to duck into the house and retrieve his rifle and return fire. Leon returned fire with a pistol to help cover his brother. The fatal shots were all fired from Rocky's rifle. No fatal shots came from Leon. deputy Jones was shot fatally while still seated in drivers seat of the patrol car (two shots through the head and about another dozen through his body. Brown was slumped dead just outside the vehicle shot several times including one shot that took off his lower jaw and blew it about one hundred feet away.
This was no case in which an armed officer would normally approach an unarmed individual, identify himself and serve the warrant. It appeared that it was a case of a botched attempt at assassination that backfired and ended fatally for the would be assassins. Now is the posting of the pictures of the deceased in bad taste? Yes. but know this, even though the Houstons were acquitted, civil liability suits were placed against the Houstons to continue their harassment against them. So the postings may very well be the direct result of this provocation and harassment. Long story short, in my opinion and experience Roane County is not necessarily a place to live if you just wish to live and let live in peace. End of story.

Fuck yeah 2nd Ammendment.