Jump to content
Paulding.com

Georgia man stands ground, result 72 yr old vet with Alzheimer's dead


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Unfortunately somebody didn't take sufficient precaution to prevent this Alzheimer's patient from wondering around on their own in the middle of the night, ending in tragedy.

FTR, I am conservative (as you know), and a complete supporter of second amendment right to bear arms. We also have guns in the house, and I support a homeowner's right to protect his and his family'

Anyone who attempts to open the door to my residence in the middle of the night will have my undivided attention and cause me along other reasonable people to enter a defensive mindset.

Posted Images

Well, someone run out and tell the man that got killed on his way to the c-store a couple weeks ago, I'm sure he would agree.

Or better yet, tell those two dead kids.

Or perhaps tell the people who's cars were broke into at the Walmart last weekend.

 

I know all of these people will be happy to hear that statistically all that didn't happen.

 

Why aren't we on the golf course?

Now that is a real crime.

 

I find it hard to believe as well but the stats say what they say. Could it be skewed because of population growth? Could our perception be different than reality because of modern-day media? It reminds me of these advanced stats you have in sports these days...stats that tell you that the player your eyes and emotions as a fan tell you is extremely productive is actually unproductive while the guy you can't stand is the better player.

 

 

Some more golf sounds good, for sure....I'll start saving for the small fortune required to buy all the golf balls I'll donate to the woods.

 

 

mrnn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly, violent crime has been on a downward trend. There are a million and one variables that could cause this, obviously, but the numbers say we're doing better.

 

post-18363-0-92901600-1385831401_thumb.gif

 

mrnn

 

Some people get violent, Mrnn, when they are being abused, so the abusers take up arms. That quietens them down.

 

I was just watching a show where Shell Oil was in Africa stealing oil from property owners, right out from under their feet. The property owners got violent, when Shell would not negotiate with them, but after Shell killed a bunch of them they settled down. :pardon:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That right does not mean nor should it imply that everyone should have a gun at the ready.

 

And where has ANYONE said that "everyone" should have a gun at the ready?

 

However, that right comes with a little thing on the end... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Apparently, you don't know what that means?

 

Stop your left winged twist things around to suit your agenda bullcheeze.

 

Any observer knows that the industry, like many corporations, is cynical and driven by greed and profit. It is resistant to innovations and improvements that would, for instance, provide a means that prevents a gun from being unlocked and able to be fired only by the owner. (Technologies similar to that in car keys where the key must include an electronic mechanism meaning the car won't start with an unauthorized key - do note the car key example is not an endorsement of that exact technology, rather the concept that guns employ technologies that accomplish that end.)

 

Your ignorance is astounding! Do you have any clue as to why there is resistance?

Do you know this technology was first presented to the law enforcement community to help prevent police officers from having their pistol

taken from them in a struggle and turned against them? The police officers themselves said this technology was a bad idea.

Why? Because it's a man made technology and it WILL fail at the most inopportune time.

Do you have ANY clue at all why this would be bad for home use?

So, I have a gun that only I can fire. I am away from home one night and a robber breaks down my door and

starts heading towards my bedroom, where my wife has just been awoke from the noise.

She reaches over and grabs my pistol, that will only fire when I am in control of it, points it at the bad guy who is trying to assault her,

and nothing happens. Now she has been raped, beaten to a pulp, or dead. All because of a little deal that was supposed to 'make it better.'

And for your information, it was the firearms community, COLT manufacturing, who actually came up with this idea.

They discarded it, because after polling and testing, the very people charged with protecting the community said it will not work and

it will create more dangerous situations for law abiding people than it will do good.

 

The notion that folks ought to carry in bars recalls scenes of shootouts in wild west saloons.

 

Scenes that happen in movies and TV.

Scenes that have been proven, rarely happened in reality.

 

And Nitr0, or would a more accurate handle be Walter Mitty, given the decline in crime and your support for carrying in bars, the idea that I'm the one with a tenuous grip on reality is rather humorous.

 

Why do you insist on lying, Pubby?

Nobody likes a liar and the more you do it the less credibility you have.

 

I did not and have not ever said that I support carrying in bars. Never.

I corrected you on the law, because of your highest disregard for true facts and pure ignorance, and now all of the sudden I am a supporter of something?

 

If you were Pinocchio, you'd have enough firewood in your nose to do you through three or four cold hard winters.

Quit making stuff up and lying.

 

Let me state again, my belief is simply we have more than enough guns out there in circulation and we don't need to make it any easier, any cheaper or any more popular.

 

And have you every right to believe that. What you don't have a right to do is tell me that I can't have an enjoy my firearms.

 

I know, as a person who is a cog in the gun marketing machine, you want more sales and use of these weapons.

 

Yet another lie.

 

Do know that I've fired guns and have even had pellet pistols for target shooting. I'd not be shy and would probably enjoy a little time at a firing range but it is not a passion ... and its fine for people to have that passion.

 

And your point?

 

Do you know how many anti-gunners I've seen and even taken to the range, who enjoy themselves while they are there and then as soon as they walk out the door

it's right back to the old "guns are bad" thought process?

 

 

Where I draw the line though is in passing laws that encourage people to carry 24/7, at schools, in bars, churches and generally in public. I think we should be a bit more restrictive in allowing avenues for any crazy Tom, criminal Dick (there are a few) and Dirty Harry to buy guns.

 

And you think if the law said that you couldn't carry in public, that is going to deter the 'crazy people' from doing that?

Just like the drunk driving laws prevent people from drunk driving... right?

We have laws in this country and we punish people when they break those laws.

Until a law is broken, we do not punish people.

 

Just as you've said I probably ought not be a gun owner, I would suggest that the non-ownership option to most folks, especially if their motivation is 'self-protection' as crime and criminal behaviors out there are declining.

 

And why are they declining? Because more and more people are getting tired of being victims and they are arming themselves against such things.

The more armed a civilized society is, the less crime there is... proven fact.

Now, before you start telling another lie and say that I said everyone should be armed... nothing is further from the truth.

But it's a fact that crimes are thwarted by legally carrying citizens more than 6800 times per day in the US.

That number is over 300 times more than the number of crimes being committed by firearms.

 

The statistical likelihood is that the gun you own is many more times likely to be the instrument of your own death (or that of a loved one) than the gun you don't own seals the deal for me. That declining crime rates mean that the likelihood of the other 300,000,000+ guns being the cause is diminishing as well.

 

The statistical likelihood of me being crushed by an automobile while it's on a lift, while I am working on it, is many more times higher than that of people who take their car to a dealer too.

That doesn't stop me from working on cars and it doesn't stop me from taking safety measures to help ensure it doesn't happen.

 

PS: If the zombie apocalypse comes I'll take up arms against the walking dead ... but smart scientists - you know the ones that are among the 97 percent who recognize global climate change - tell me that zombies (re-animated human eating dead people) are impossible.

 

You love to play with words don't you?

Has there been anyone that actually has said there is no "global climate change?"

I haven't heard that.

Do humans and their habits cause the change? That's the debate... not whether or not there is change.

 

I'll give you credit for one thing. You know how to play with words.

The problem is... I don't fall for your word play and lies.

I deal in facts and reality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I really hate to tell you this... but that gun did not fire by itself.

 

He pulled the trigger and it failed to fire in an expected amount of time.

 

He then did something completely stupid and negligent.

 

And BTW, this sort of misfire is almost always the fault of the ammunition and not the firearm.

 

But thanks for playing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate to tell you this... but that gun did not fire by itself.

 

He pulled the trigger and it failed to fire in an expected amount of time.

 

He then did something completely stupid and negligent.

 

And BTW, this sort of misfire is almost always the fault of the ammunition and not the firearm.

 

But thanks for playing!

 

I really hate to have to tell you, NITRO, a damn dummy with a gun is dangerous, even with a permit to have one. :pardon:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an article about the decline in crime Stradial from, 'OH HORRORS!' a site called 'public intellectual'.

 

For the record, it is generally considered a good idea to look at statistical information rather than anecdotal information, if for no other reason there will always be stories of murders until there is no murder anywhere in the world.

 

A crime puzzle

 

The economy is down. Shouldn’t violent crime be up?

 

By Claude Fischer

 

Fischer is professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. He was the founding editor of Contexts, the American Sociological Association’s magazine of sociology for the general reader, and edited the magazine through 2004.

 

Violent crime went down in America again last year. According to preliminary statistics from the FBI covering the first half of 2010. The number of violent crimes dropped by about 6 percent from the same period a year before. Given population growth, that means that the rate of violent crime dropped even more. And property crime dropped too.

 

This is a puzzle because crime is more common among the poor; the percentage of poor Americans has been trending up since about 2000. The economy tanked in the last couple of years. One would have expected a rise, not a fall, in violent crime.

 

But this head-scratcher is just part of a larger puzzle – understanding long-term trends in America’s criminal violence.

 

Murder History

 

The most reliable measure of violent crime is the homicide rate. Americans kill one another at a much higher rate – double, quadruple, or more – than do residents of comparable western European nations. This gap persists despite a roughly 40 percent drop in our homicide rate in the last 15 years or so. Americans have been notably more violent than western Europeans since about the mid-to-late 19th century.

 

This graph shows the American homicide rate over the last century-plus. (A few notes about construction of the chart are at the end of the post.)

 

Homicides 1900-2010

 

Homicides-1900-2010-2.jpg

 

The puzzle compounds. We see a roughly cyclical pattern: a high plateau in the 1920s and early 30s; a rapid drop of more than half to a low point in the late 1950s; then, a sharp rise, more than doubling, by 1980 and 1990. That’s followed by what will probably be a drop of about half by 2010. These are huge swings.

 

We can put this story into yet greater perspective with the graph below. The line in that graph represents my rough estimate of fluctuations in the U.S. rate of homicide over many more generations, drawing on the historical literature (see some references at the end of this post). While the details are informed guesses, the general trend is well established.

 

The overall story is that homicide rates declined substantially (as did rates of interpersonal violence of all sorts). The drop in violent crime in the U.S. after about 1850 was not as fast or as consistent as it was in Western Europe. That is when the striking violence gap between the U.S. and Europe opened up. The graph also shows that progress was hardly uniform, as there were many upswings of violence. Spurts often coincide with wars and the aftermaths of war – notably having many demobilized soldiers, trained and armed fighters, roaming the land. (See this paper for one analysis of the war effect.) Another short-term influence is bloody competition among armed criminals – for example, over alcohol distribution during Prohibition and over crack cocaine during the 1980s.

 

image link because image too large: Murder in America 1650-present

 

Scholars have offered several explanations for the centuries’-long decline of violence in the West. Here are three common ones:

 

Government: Over many generations, political authorities gained greater policing power and legitimacy. This allowed them to suppress criminal attacks, intergroup battles, and personal feuds. Also, court systems provided a peaceful way to resolve conflicts. And mandatory schooling swept dangerous boys off the streets.

 

Economics: Greater and more broadly distributed wealth reduced people’s motivation for crime and raised the costs of getting into trouble. (Barroom brawling seems less attractive if it will cost you a steady and well-paying job.) This explanation may seem to have foundered in the last several years, but in the long run – if not the short run – goes the argument, the affluent society is the pacific society.

 

Culture: Over the centuries, westerners increasingly came to feel that violence was uncouth and distasteful. Historians refer to the “civilizing process,” a phrase German sociologist Norbert Elias used to describe how the royal courts of Europe suppressed bloody feuds among lords. The repression of violence spread to the bourgeois who, in turn, taught it to the working classes – or forced it on them through, for example, schooling. Over time, hitting, knifing, and shooting came to seem (to most people) as vulgar as smelling from body odor or defecating in the castle hallway.

 

Back to the Present

 

How might any of this explain the latest – the post-1990s – downswing in homicide and in criminal violence more generally? The rates are now at roughly the level of the least violent era in American history, the late 1950s.

 

Researchers point to some similar factors, although they disagree about their relative importance. Some stress government authority, namely that longer criminal sentences and the prison-building boom kept many more bad actors off the streets longer. Others point to the economic boom of the 1990s, when unemployment, even in poor communities, sunk to low levels. And others argue – although it is difficult to confirm with hard data – that a cultural shift occurred, that increasing revulsion toward violence eventually spread into even the most violent communities and corners of the United States. (One piece of evidence is that a similar, though much less volatile, pattern occurred in Canada, which is more culturally than legally similar to the United States.)

 

Recently, scholars have added yet another explanation: Immigration – although not in the way that some people might expect. Cities and neighborhoods that have received the largest influx of immigrants (including Mexican immigrants) have had – despite popular stereotypes to the contrary – the largest drops in criminal violence. (See, for example here and here. Thus, increased immigration may explain part of the crime drop since 1990.

 

In a wider view, perhaps the more puzzling part of the story is the rapid upswing in violence from around 1960 to 1990 (see the first graph above). Two generations of scholars have yet (it appears to me) to satisfactorily explain why that happened. Some of the upswing in crime can be attributed to the baby boom: Put a lot more 15-to-25-year-old males into a society and you will get an upsurge of violence. Some of it has to do with what happened in the black ghettos of the North: The population grew rapidly just when the well-paying blue-collar jobs for men were disappearing. Some of it involved the growing drug trade. And perhaps some of the upswing reflected a short-term cultural shift – maybe the baby boomers’ rejection of authority – that encouraged violence.

 

Whatever the reason, the downward trend of violent crime in the U.S. seems consistent with our longer history, although still high by first-world standards. It’s the upsurge of violent crime starting in the early 1960s that is now ending that remains the larger puzzle.

 

* * *

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate to have to tell you, NITRO, a damn dummy with a gun is dangerous, even with a permit to have one. :pardon:

 

I hate to tell you, Postman, but you don't follow conversations very well.

 

The video was posted in response to the statement, "But a gun will not fire all by it's lonesome. "

 

So, for you as well, thanks for playing, but you won't be getting a prize today.

Edited by NITR0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Third, you don't have to watch commercials, on TV, because you see the same ones, over, and over, again. So why do you draw my commercial out, and criticize the fact that it's been shown before? I don't charge anything, and you are not my target audience. Just like on TV, commercials aggravate me, but I know I'm not the targeted audience. They are paying for the right to interrupt the programs I like to watch.

 

Fourth, the case involves the firing of a warning shot, because the mom was not trying to hit the aggressor. If she had he would have been shot dead, as mad as she was, at him. :friends:

 

Which is still an aggravated assault, the shot was in the wall about 2ft from his head which makes it a use of deadly force which would place any reasonable person in fear. More likely it was simply a miss. We don't give people a pass just because they miss, if so every miss would be a 'warning shot'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an article about the decline in crime Stradial from, 'OH HORRORS!' a site called 'public intellectual'.

 

For the record, it is generally considered a good idea to look at statistical information rather than anecdotal information, if for no other reason there will always be stories of murders until there is no murder anywhere in the world.

 

So you leave your home unlocked like we did back in the bad old 60's and 70's?

 

Stats can be manipulated as easy as a 22 year old hot blond does a 50 year old man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of extreme right bobble heads may have many convinced that people that are concerned about people running out to buy guns and get permits is a good thing.

I am sure they are convincing many that those of us concerned about this are liberal commies.

I am 100% in support of the right to own and bare weapons. I am not in support of purchasing and permitting to make a point. I have met hundreds of people in my lifetime that should never have access to a gun. I don't like laws that are he said/ she said and the answer I was scared is good enough. I am not anything but rightfully concerned. When you put bobble headed rhetoric above innocent lives you are the problem. Not gun laws, not democrats, not liberals or commies.

Stupidity is the number one killer and second behind that is willfully ignorant.

If God wanted people to kill each other with a projectile he would have given us a mouth without a brain :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :p :p :p :p

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you leave your home unlocked like we did back in the bad old 60's and 70's?

 

Stats can be manipulated as easy as a 22 year old hot blond does a 50 year old man.

 

If I did leave my home unlocked do you think I would be stupid enough to advertise it on Paulding's most read website?

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a civil suit, I'm pretty sure the homeowner will lose.

 

I'm no expert, but since he "advanced" when he went outside, when he already knew there was someone out there, I wouldn't think that self defense, would be applicable, even if he was still in his yard.

 

I for one would find against him if I was on the civil jury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to the topic about 72 year old man who died; here is the latest thing I could find.

 

 

Autopsy to be conducted on body of Alzheimer's patient shot to death in northwest Georgia

 

My only concern is that feeling threatened is someone's opinion about an incident. No lie detector test, and nothing else but opinion. Maybe an autopsy will be better than a lie detector test; who knows? But, it's shady investigation, so far.

 

I know that some people's rights are easier to obtain, in a given situation. What is an obvious right is free to some citizens, while others must get a Declaratory Judgment. :pardon:

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure they are convincing many that those of us concerned about this are liberal commies.

 

Nope. Not at all. The firearms community would love to see something be done as well.

It just needs to be done as to not infringe on the rights of legal citizen's.

All anyone ever wants to do is more firearms laws. We have enough, and if enforced, work perfectly.

The problem is that people 'crazies' that escape the system because there is no means to track them.

Why don't we ever see you or anyone else asking why we don't have better tracking systems for the mentality ill people?

The problem is, people like you and Pubby are so scared of the law abiding citizens, you're blinded by the real problem

and all you want to do is point to the law abiding gun owners and the guns themselves, instead of the real problem.... the people.

Intelligent and responsible people look at the "big bad person," rather than the "big bad inanimate object" called a gun.

 

But speaking of "liberal commies." Isn't it funny firearms organizations, specifically the NRA, didn't release a press

statement after the Sandy Hook shooting, but less than a week later gave the proposal to put armed police officers

in schools....and the NRA offered to fund it.? You know what's even funnier is that the left wingers and 'liberal commies'

said it was a foolish idea and would never work and there simply wasn't enough funds to do it.

Wasn't enough funds to do it? The NRA was gonna pay for it!

Yet, almost a year after the fact, Joe Biden and his 'task force' comes up with the EXACT same idea

and now all of the sudden it's a fabulous idea and the money can be found.

And during the meantime, the NRA had already started the funding and program to make it possible.

You see, yeah, "left wing liberal commie" is most definitely a suitable name.

It's not a good idea when a right leaning organization comes up with and offers to fund it,

but it's a damn good ideal when a liberal comes up with the idea, a year after the fact,

and all of the sudden, the money that wasn't available before, is now available.

 

I don't like laws that are he said/ she said and the answer I was scared is good enough.

 

And just what would you like?

 

I'm in a parking lot, nobody else around, and someone attacks me.

I shoot and kill them.

 

Exactly just how are you going to fix that?

Have you invented a time machine where you can go back and watch the events unfold?

Some how, I don't think you have... Life isn't perfect and whether you like it or not, sometimes you have to

live with the way it is...

In times like this, the persons character and previous history come in to play.

What other way would you propose?

Just like the alternative fuel issue.... you want change, but you have nothing to offer.

 

When you put bobble headed rhetoric above innocent lives you are the problem. Not gun laws, not democrats, not liberals or commies.

 

No, the problem is we as a society don't hold people accountable for their actions anymore.

The problem is parents don't teach their children respect for other people and human life.

The problem is people who are concerned look down the wrong avenue to get something fixed.

 

If God wanted people to kill each other with a projectile he would have given us a mouth without a brain :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :p :p :p :p

 

If God didn't want us to protect ourselves with projectile based weapons, he wouldn't have given us the brains or means to invent such things. :drinks:

Edited by NITR0
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think 99.99999999% of the people reading this are the same way. They have been in fear for their life but have not killed, or shot, anyone. And likely would not have shot anyone anyway.

 

During the past I have felt fear for my life, several times, but never killed anyone. :drinks:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think 99.99999999% of the people reading this are the same way. They have been in fear for their life but have not killed, or shot, anyone. And likely would not have shot anyone anyway.

 

 

Down there, in Florida, statistics are showing a huge change in that scenario S & D's N!

 

I want post the evidence again, I got jumped for doing that. :drinks:

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Here's some evidence I haven't posted, regarding the increase in homicides, in stand your ground states.

 

 

gr-stand-your-ground-300.gif

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a civil suit, I'm pretty sure the homeowner will lose.

 

I'm no expert, but since he "advanced" when he went outside, when he already knew there was someone out there, I wouldn't think that self defense, would be applicable, even if he was still in his yard.

 

I for one would find against him if I was on the civil jury.

 

....and that is where you would be wrong. GA has nothing in its law that says you must retreat or not confront a suspected criminal. Matter of fact GA law will offer him civil immunity since his actions were justified under criminal law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime is down by over 5 %, too.

 

yahoo.gif

Down there, in Florida, statistics are showing a huge change in that scenario S & D's N!

 

I want post the evidence again, I got jumped for doing that. :drinks:

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Here's some evidence I haven't posted, regarding the increase in homicides, in stand your ground states.

 

 

gr-stand-your-ground-300.gif

 

Isn't that the whole premise of "stand your ground"? You don't have to retreat.

 

....and that is where you would be wrong. GA has nothing in its law that says you must retreat or not confront a suspected criminal. Matter of fact GA law will offer him civil immunity since his actions were justified under criminal law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think 99.99999999% of the people reading this are the same way. They have been in fear for their life but have not killed, or shot, anyone. And likely would not have shot anyone anyway.

 

 

..and contrary to what Pubby thinks and tries to make other people think, the majority of us legal owners and carriers are the same way.

 

I have drawn my weapon in personal defense three times during my life.

In all three cases, I have no doubt, that without a weapon, I would have have been seriously hurt or killed.

Luckily, drawing my weapon was enough to deter the criminals actions.

 

I have been in several other uncomfortable circumstances where my firearm was never exposed.

Why? Because, although I felt uncomfortable and was involved in a verbal conflict with someone,

my life or anyone elses life were not in imminent danger.

 

I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't carry because I'm looking to do so.

I carry for my personal protection, the protection of my family, and to protect those around me.

If I had to dispatch someone, don't think I wouldn't. But I, nor the majority of the law abiding citizens

that carry are the "Rambo's" that Pubby and other radical anti-gun nuts would have you believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked for a short time for a man who owned a business down on Fulton Industrial. He said he was sitting in his office one evening after everyone else had left. He had a mirror on the wall across from his desk and it mirrored the parking lot and front door. His office window was coated so that nobody could see inside from the outside. He watched as a man jimmied the lock and came in the front door. He said the man opened the door to the reception area, went down the hall the VERY short distance to his office. When the man came in the door there was the business owner sitting with his .357 pointing toward the door. Needless to say, the "bad guy" left a lot faster than he came in. Nobody got shot, nobody got hurt. I would expect someone had to clean out their pants though.

 

 

..and contrary to what Pubby thinks and tries to make other people think, the majority of us legal owners and carriers are the same way.

 

I have drawn my weapon in personal defense three times during my life.

In all three cases, I have no doubt, that without a weapon, I would have have been seriously hurt or killed.

Luckily, drawing my weapon was enough to deter the criminals actions.

 

I have been in several other uncomfortable circumstances where my firearm was never exposed.

Why? Because, although I felt uncomfortable and was involved in a verbal conflict with someone,

my life or anyone elses life were not in imminent danger.

 

I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't carry because I'm looking to do so.

I carry for my personal protection, the protection of my family, and to protect those around me.

If I had to dispatch someone, don't think I wouldn't. But I, nor the majority of the law abiding citizens

that carry are the "Rambo's" that Pubby and other radical anti-gun nuts would have you believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Pcommer who doesn't come around much these days but I'm friends with him on FB....he had a very similar thing happen last week....lives out in the country, knock on the door at 0300, wasn't expecting anyone, stayed inside and called the police....shockingly, no one ended up dead. Amazing what happens when one doesn't seek out trouble by taking a loaded weapon out to "investigate".

 

 

mrnn

 

I feel for the old man and his family, but I know the feelilng this homeowner had; he had NO idea who this person was or could be. If he had, I don't believe the outcome would have been the same.

This same thing happened to me about 2 months ago. Someone rang my door bell at 3:00 a.m.; rang it again after a few minutes. I could not see my front door without going into the living area, but no car was in the driveway. I KNOW from news reports, etc. that many burglars do just that, and if no one is home, they continue to break in. I have a disabled son and could see him in his room from where I stood. I do have a gun and had it ready, but decided to turn the light on in my room and make them aware someone is home. That worked; they obviously left because I got brave and ran across the room into my son's room; called 911 and THEN looked outside. But after that incident, I was worried about them coming back. They were obviously up to no good; were not friends/neighbors, or they would have yelled my name and let me know it was them. MAYBE I SHOULD have at least fired a shot towards the door to scare them into NOT returning. NOW I have to worry all the time if they will come back and try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If my doorbell rings at 3 a.m., it better be God.

 

The night after we moved in, our doorbell rang about a half hour after we got in bed. Since we didn't know a soul in town, we couldn't imagine who it could be. Turned out to be the next door neighbor offering to help unload the truck for us. It was about 11:00. At night. unsure.gif We declined their offer.

 

 

I feel for the old man and his family, but I know the feelilng this homeowner had; he had NO idea who this person was or could be. If he had, I don't believe the outcome would have been the same.

This same thing happened to me about 2 months ago. Someone rang my door bell at 3:00 a.m.; rang it again after a few minutes. I could not see my front door without going into the living area, but no car was in the driveway. I KNOW from news reports, etc. that many burglars do just that, and if no one is home, they continue to break in. I have a disabled son and could see him in his room from where I stood. I do have a gun and had it ready, but decided to turn the light on in my room and make them aware someone is home. That worked; they obviously left because I got brave and ran across the room into my son's room; called 911 and THEN looked outside. But after that incident, I was worried about them coming back. They were obviously up to no good; were not friends/neighbors, or they would have yelled my name and let me know it was them. MAYBE I SHOULD have at least fired a shot towards the door to scare them into NOT returning. NOW I have to worry all the time if they will come back and try again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems this is happening more and more often. I believe it was just the other day a woman in Atlanta shot and killed her daughter thinking it was her abusive boyfriend returning home.

I understand "Stand Your Ground", but how does someone live with the fact they accidently took an innocent person's life.

Is this the same thing as causing an automobile accident that kills another person?

 

 

I just wanted to clarify that I had the location wrong of the woman that shot her daughter by accident.

It was in Winterhaven, Florida, not Atlanta.

 

From the article:

Authorities said Ruby Bing went to visit her mother and knocked at her front door while holding her 4-month-old baby.

 

Police said Adele Bing was still upset about the argument she had with Lane and thought he was the person knocking.

 

Investigators said Adele Bing armed herself with a baseball bat and a handgun, and as she opened the door, she fired a shot, hitting her daughter in the upper chest. The 4-month-old was not injured, but Ruby Bing died at the scene.

 

Link to article in AJC

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...