okay which one of you WAKI owners is this

[forestnomad]

So tell me, what should I do when a non-hostile intruder invades my home? Really curious.

I meant hostile as in "unequivocally intending to do you bodily harm". My point is, I do not think it is right to blow someone away just because they are in your home.

 

[rover]

"Just because they are in your home." Give me a break.

Someone breaks into my home they are dead, plain and simple. And I'd then have my lawyer make a claim against any of his assets for damages to my property.

 

[Strabs]

Most state laws say if you find a person in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later.

LMAO, in Illinois you are required to flee and even if you are cornered you must let them rape you a little or get a couple stab wounds in before you can retaliate or defend yourself:thumbup:

 

[gixxerman]

That is F**king awesome!!!

 

[adrock1978]

:thumbup: I agree completely. Force should be used only if absolutely necessary. If faced with the prospect of an intruder in my house, I think the prudent thing to do would be to contact the police while either avoiding detection or escaping completely. Only if forced into a confrontation would I advocate the use of force. And if that means killing the intruder, so be it, but my first instinct would be to incapacitate.

I believe Thalestin is right, the attitude of "shoot first, ask questions later" is a good way to get innocent people killed, and why knife and gun bans are so pervasive. The reasons some would say is free reign to use as much force as possible are the same reasons to execute as much caution as possible. When an intruder is obviously hostile, I agree, you should consider the possibility that force may be necessary. But as Thalestin said, you just don't know. Immediately killing an intruder simply based on the fact that they are in your home is a dangerous attitude to have.

Personally I think anyone that would hide or attempt to escape their own house while an intruder turns your life upside down, is a coward. How would you feel when the guy gets his hands on your weapon and uses it against you... or kills your neighbor the next night. So much for ascertaining whether or not deadly force is necessary.

I'd rather live with blowing some amature crook's head off, then to live with the regret god forbid the situation turns against you in your time of indecision. Woulda' shoulda' coulda' doesn't bring a dead loved one back.

 

[stricknine]

i agree with adrock1978 comment 110% could not have been said better

 

[reddawn]

nobody belongs in your home but you and your family.anybody else that breaks in unanounced is a criminal with bad intentions,,,kill em!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cant believe the candy a!@#es in this country!!! just my opinion.........

 

[762 shooter]

Guglielmi did not know why the student kept a sword.

Baaah.
Why did the reporter even ask that question. Frickin' sheeple. Good guys-1, Bad guys- pieces.

 

[LeftytwoGuns]

That piece of shit got what he deserved in my opinion.

Notice at the end of the story they said, if you think someone is breaking in to your house, lock yourself somewhere safe and wait for the cops.

Meanwhile, the crack head runs off with your shit and is never found.
It's a shame what some elements of our society are turning into..

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Notice at the end of the story they said, if you think someone is breaking in to your house, lock yourself somewhere safe and wait for the cops.

So an intruder can arm himself, kick in the door and do you in at his leisure while you wait for the police, who are not even legally required to respond to your call. . .

 

[DWRW]

That is totally dangerous BS. What if the person was a friend of someone that also lived in the house? You just dont know. Its an attitude like this that gets inocent people killed and also why people are after peoples knives and guns. Now if the guy is clearly looking to steal or the window was bustd in etc I can see you point a little better. I still thinking killing someone should be a last resort, not a precaution

We are not talking about friends of family kids here. We are talking about INTRUDERS - who have broken into your house.


"Dangerous" is assuming someone who "breaks" into your house might be a nice guy and "might" not mean you any harm.

Granted, someone could break into your house un-armed with no intentions of harming you. But, how do you know "Safely" that an intruder is un-armed?
Even if the intruder is butt naked and clearly un-armed (as far as you can "see"), are you REALLY 100% positive he can't kill you and your family?


I don't know about some people here and what world you might live on. Maybe some people have an open door policy with friends and neighbors where people come and go as they please 24/7. If so, good luck.

But, in my house, I KNOW who should and should NOT be in my house.

****** Intruders and people who break into other peoples homes have instantly "WAIVED" their inocent card! - So, take the "Inocent" intruder BS and go sing peace rally songs with the Brady bastards.

I guess I am lucky that I don't have kids and have to wonder if one of their friends is being a STUPID, IDIOT, MORON by breaking into my house!

But, if I did have kids, my kids would KNOW that STUPID, IDIOT, MORON friends risk getting shot and are NOT welcome to break into my house - And I would tell my kids to make sure their friends are aware of the risks.

Breaking into somebody's house is NOT acceptable behavior and short of a dumb "VERY YOUNG" kid (that I am certain I could ID), anybody else should know they are risking their life by breaking into somebody else's home. Pretty dang simple.

But, if "sheeple" start making it "Acceptable" for people to break into other people's home, then SHEEPLE are to blame for intruders getting killed for allowing intruders to think it is OK to break into peoples homes - or that they might just be able to pull it off somehow without getting shot.

I don't WANT to kill anyone. But, if I EVER have to shoot and kill an intruder, I WILL sleep well at night knowing that I made a LOGICAL and RATIONAL assumption that the intruder took HIS or HER own life in their hands by risking breaking into my house and ANY INTRUDED should know they (as an intruder who is breaking into my house) are a percieved LIFE THREAT.

I meant hostile as in "unequivocally intending to do you bodily harm". My point is, I do not think it is right to blow someone away just because they are in your home.

If some kid just wondered into my unlocked back door during the middle of the day (rare possibility as my doors and gate are generally locked all day even if I am at home - unless I am outside and nearby), then yeah, I think there is good reason to NOT shoot that particular "obvious" low threat individual "Just because they are in my home".

But, if ANYBODY "breaks into my house" - however they break into my house, HELL YES I consider them potentially dangerous - and "potentially" is sufficient.

Outside of the "OBVIOUS" kid who might have wondered into your back door, how do "YOU" (REALLY) determine "unequivocally intending to do you bodily harm" when somebody has broken into your home?

You feel free to play 50 questions with an intruder if you like. It is your life... maybe your family's too. Go ahead. Roll the dice. But, DON'T waste your time preaching to me on how I should handle an intruder.



I think it is safe to say, I would do my best to identify the intruder if "reasonable" to do so. But, if somebody FREAKIN' BREAKS INTO MY HOUSE, I don't start asking 50 questions about whether they mean me or my family harm.

In "My" world/(reality), somebody who breaks into my house is "ASSUMED" dangerous. And it should be a FAIR assumption since the REALITY is it is unreasonable to realistically determine who may or may not mean or be capable of life threatening harm.

It is not realistic to try to protect STUPID IDIOTS who break into homes and for those trying to protect themselves to have to question whether or not intruders mean mean harm. If they are truly inocent, then unfortunately, "some" STUPID IDIOTS will unfortunately die for their stupidity.




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

:thumbup: I agree completely. Force should be used only if absolutely necessary. If faced with the prospect of an intruder in my house, I think the prudent thing to do would be to contact the police while either avoiding detection or escaping completely. Only if forced into a confrontation would I advocate the use of force. And if that means killing the intruder, so be it, but my first instinct would be to incapacitate.

I believe Thalestin is right, the attitude of "shoot first, ask questions later" is a good way to get innocent people killed, and why knife and gun bans are so pervasive. The reasons some would say is free reign to use as much force as possible are the same reasons to execute as much caution as possible. When an intruder is obviously hostile, I agree, you should consider the possibility that force may be necessary. But as Thalestin said, you just don't know. Immediately killing an intruder simply based on the fact that they are in your home is a dangerous attitude to have.

Clueless! :thumbdn:



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

Personally I think anyone that would hide or attempt to escape their own house while an intruder turns your life upside down, is a coward. How would you feel when the guy gets his hands on your weapon and uses it against you... or kills your neighbor the next night. So much for ascertaining whether or not deadly force is necessary.

I'd rather live with blowing some amature crook's head off, then to live with the regret god forbid the situation turns against you in your time of indecision. Woulda' shoulda' coulda' doesn't bring a dead loved one back.

I COMPLETELY agree. It is this COWARD mentallity that EMPOWERS criminals towards others. Each and EVERY sheeple out there gives added incentive to criminals and increases risk to other individuals.

Part of the BENIFIT of gun ownership laws, carry laws and similar is the DETERANT factor. Criminals are LESS likely to attack somebody or break into their homes if there is a realistic fear of getting SHOT!

Pass laws to take away people's ability to defend themselves, and there is WAY less fear of getting shot, so WAY higher chance of criminals being more bold......


....... Not to mention the criminals tend to always have weapons even if illegal.

A lot of people don't realize it, but we are at CIVIL WAR here. Rights to bear arms (guns, knives, etc.) are being infringed by our own freaking neighbors, co-workers and often even friends and family.

--------


The movie "A Few Good Men" is a Classic for many reasons. In the movie, Colonel Jessup was the Bad Guy. But, he was primarily only bad because of how he handled a specific situation involving Private Santiago.

But, the following arguement was VERY valid (and carries over into home defense!):


JESSEP: Have you ever spent time in an infantry unit, son?

KAFFEE: No sir.

JESSEP: Ever served in a forward area?

KAFFEE: No sir.

JESSEP: Ever put your life in another man’s hands, ask him to put his life in yours?

KAFFEE: No sir.

JESSEP: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It’s that simple. Are we clear?

KAFFEE: Yes sir.

JESSEP: Are we clear?

KAFFEE: Crystal.

KAFFEE: I want the truth.

JESSEP: You can’t handle the truth!

JESSEP: Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? … I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: … death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You want me there. We use words like honour, code, loyalty… we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ‘em as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to.


:thumbup:

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

LMAO, in Illinois you are required to flee and even if you are cornered you must let them rape you a little or get a couple stab wounds in before you can retaliate or defend yourself:thumbup:

Add another reason why I won't move to Illinois.

.

 

[Disaster Monkey]

Notice at the end of the story they said, if you think someone is breaking in to your house, lock yourself somewhere safe and wait for the cops.

Mommy government doesn't want people to get the idea that they are capable of taking care of their own safety and security ... they want to maintain the police monopoly on force because when you're left to call and beg them for help in an emergency, they've got you under their thumb.

I personally wouldn't execute someone for simply intruding into my home ... I would escalate force as necessary to protect my life and those of my family. That said, from what little information I see in this story, it looks like a righteous kill, and I'm not going to cry over a guy like this getting chopped up. Hopefully some other would-be home invaders see this story and give their occupation a second thought.

 

[45stops-em-quick]

Whether it was, "This guy's going to kill me" self defense, or, "This MF'er just broke into my house and he's not going to do it again."

It's all the same thing in the end, TCB.

To the pansies who want to ask the person who has violated your safe refuge wheter they're there for coffee or stealing, muredering and raping, good luck out there, you will need it. Any man with a wife and a family at home who would lock himself up and hope that the bad guy doesn't hurt anyone doesn't deserve a family or the title of man.

 

[tedwca]

This is why you assume they are armed. This just happened last night in a good neighborhood.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crime/archives/2009/09/three-killed-in.html

he deaths of two men and a woman -- all shot to death -- are the possible result of what police say was a home invasion late Tuesday in Roseville.

All three people were shot to death, police said, and one of the men found at the house is the suspected shooter.

The other man and the woman are believed to be residents of the home and related to each other, but police early this morning did not specify how they are related.

None of the three has been identified by officials, pending notification of family members.

Police said they have yet to determine what led to the home invasion and the deaths, but Roseville police Detective Jerry Wernli said all three people might have known each other.

"Nothing indicates that this is random," Wernli said. Police said they believe there are no other suspects in the killings.

Roseville police spokeswoman Dee Dee Gunther said that shortly before 9 p.m. Tuesday police received a 911 call from a teenage boy reporting that a man, whom he did not know, had entered his house and possibly shot two of his family members. The boy escaped, although it's unclear if he fled the house before officers arrived, police said. He was taken to safety by officers.

About 10 patrol officers responded initially, Gunther said. Police surrounded the house and closed nearby streets to traffic. They later summoned the Tri-Cities Regional SWAT team, which deployed a camera-equipped robot to check the interior of the house before team members entered the building at about 1:40 a.m.

Police would not say where in the house the bodies were found.

Five cars, including two Sports-Utility vehicles, were parked outside the house, which was cordoned off with yellow crime scene tape. Detectives and crime scene technicians worked into the early hours of the morning gathering evidence, as a few neighbors in the suburban neighborhood just off of Junction Boulevard stood on the street waiting to talk to detectives.

The killings are an anomaly in Roseville, a city known for its low violent crime rate. 2008 FBI statistics ranked the city as the safest from violent crime in the region for cities of similar size. The last homicide in Roseville was in March 2007.

 

[Soulrack223]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_self-defense

Right of self-defense in Maryland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the state of Maryland, the right of self-defense is primarily governed by case law and jury instructions. At present, the topic of self-defense is not explicitly covered by statute, though Title §4–101 allows citizens of the state to carry non-firearm weapons "as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger."


[edit] Duty-to-retreat
By common law, some self defense in Maryland requires duty-to-retreat. Maryland at present, has no "Castle Doctrine" exception set down in statutory law per se, [1] but does have case law indicating duty to retreat does not apply when attacked in one's home. Other exceptions to duty to retreat are being the victim of a robbery, situations where the imminent peril of attack makes retreat impossible or retreat would not remove the danger (i.e. a physically injured or disabled person trying to flee from an able-bodied attacker). See Marquardt v. State, 164 Md. App. 95, 140 (2005). See also Sydnor v. State, 365 Md. 205, 216, A.2d 669, 675 (2001).


[edit] Meeting the duty-to-retreat criteria
The duty-to-retreat criteria can be met under two different circumstances. And, in both circumstances, the actions must be considered against the actions of a reasonable person in the same situation.

The first circumstance can be met when the individual is in a location where retreat is possible. It is met when the individual does, in fact, retreat but retreats to a location where they can safely retreat no further. Thus the situation results in some type of self defense.

The second circumstance can be met when the individual is in a location where retreat is not possible. This is a location where the individual has no known avenues of safe retreat. The issue of whether the avenues do exist are irrelevant, as long as the individual is unaware of their existence. Also, the avenue must always be an avenue of safe retreat.


[edit] Self Defense
If the duty-to-retreat criteria is met, then the following self defense criteria are examined, as contained within the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction. Optional or alternate inclusions into the jury instruction are enclosed with < >. Phrases surrounded with () are substituted with specific instances of the case.


[edit] Self-Defense (MPJI-Cr 5:07)
Self-defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:

1) The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend <himself> <herself> in light of the threatenend or actual harm.
<Deadly-force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided whether the use of deadly-force was reasonable. Deadly-force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response.>

<In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if the defendant was in <his> <her> home, retreat was unsafe, the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant, the defendant was being robbed, the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim. If the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.>


[edit] Defense of Others (MPJI-Cr 5:01)
Defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:

1) The defendant actually believed that the person defended was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
4) The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.

[edit] Defense of Habitation - Deadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02)
Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:

1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim).

[edit] Defense of Property - Nondeadly Force (MPJI-Cr 5:02.1)
Defense of property is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:

1) The defendant actually believed that (victim) was unlawfully interfering <was just about to unlawfully interfere> with property.
2) The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3) The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the victim's interference with the property.
<A person may not use deadly force to defend <his> <her> property. Deadly force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm.>


[edit] References
^ Hooper et al. (2007-03-15). "2007 Maryland Senate Bill 761". http://house.state.md.us/2007RS/fnotes/bil_0001/sb0761.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-09.

[edit] See also
Castle Doctrine

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense_in_Maryland"
Categories: Maryland law

It doesn't appear to matter if you're attacked in your own home in Maryland as long as the threat is to you and not tp your stuff. To be sure, in some places it wouldn't have mattered, but when I initially posted yesterday I knew that Baltimore, Maryland was not one of those places. I always try to keep my posts short.

 

[LeftytwoGuns]

I don't know how many of you know this, but I work at a maximum security prison.

I am also Ex-Military so I come from a job filled with duty, professionalism, and most of all respect.

There is none of that in a maximum security state prison. I can tell you that most of these guys are animals. Most of them play the psych game to recieve high dollar psych meds on our tax dollar, so they can remain as high as possible, like they did when they were on the street. Most of these guys have 10 years, 20 years or multiple life sentences. A very high percentage, if they were able to get out, would go right back into the same life they left.

This type of human is not trying to work a 'nine to five' They have no sense of responsibility, and they don't give a crap about you or I. They want what they want, they want it now, and they don't want to have to work for it. Many of these guys have children, no doubt on welfare or in foster homes.

So, to sum this up. They took from us (someone in our society) while they were on the outside, by STEALING, raping, killing, drug dealing, you name it. Now that they are incarcerated, they are taking from us again, because our tax dollars provide their electric, water, FOOD (3 hot meals a day by the way, I'd wager better than that of someone in Iraq at the moment) They get dental care, legal help (to try and have their case over-turned by any technicality they can find, so they get out of prison and then will sue for wrongful imprisonment) A death row inmate can get a heart transplant, can you believe that? Most death row inmates spend about 15-20 years tied up in court battles to try and get off their sentence, before they are actually executed for their crime. And as I mentioned, you can imagine any dependents they have at home, we're paying for as well.

So my answer to the deadly force question would be the safety of my family is not to be risked for the safety of an intruder. When legal, and justified I would have no problem using force to protect that which is my own.

I have been legally carrying guns for years, and have never had to use one. But as my signature line says..
If you wish for peace
prepare for war

 

[Nuke41]

When seconds count the cops are only minutes away......

 

[skoocher]

If anything this incident will be a deterrent for the rest of the local scum bags.

 

[Mr. Night]

LMAO, in Illinois you are required to flee and even if you are cornered you must let them rape you a little or get a couple stab wounds in before you can retaliate or defend yourself:thumbup:

yeah- illinois is f***ed up,,,,,thanks obama.

now he will make the rest of america this way. just you watch.

 

[allsgood]

Hahaha. True. But in most cases simply finding a person in your house is enough cause for self defense. That was my point. If there was obvious evidence showing breaking and entering, and nothing showing the student dragged the body back into the house, proof of a physical attack wouldn't be needed.

Most state laws say if you find a person in your house, you can shoot first and ask questions later.

Agreed though; an incomplete story it is.

doesnt it say that the intruder was in the garage? The house was earlier in the day. "He heard noise looked out and the garage door was open. So he grabbed his samurai sword and ......." He hacked him in the garage. I hope the bleeding hearts dont try and contend that he didnt have to confront the intruder as he could have called police versus going out of his way to go to the garage. That would not be right! In the house, on the property same-o same-0 to me.