Thread: Home invasion

I'm ambivalent toward the finger cutter and co. I'm just stating the reasons why I think they will be sentenced.

Given the repeated nature I wonder myself what history/altercations have passed between the parties or associates involved.

As for cowering, I always own capable dogs and will make use of a hockey stick if need be. I'd be happier taking responsibility for that than pairing off someone a finger in retribution and gloating about it afterwards.

These are the choices these chaps made and if they're happy taking responsibility for that then all power to them.

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

I guess it's hardly a normal home invasion either, these guys kept coming back. I do wounder how some of the members here who are judging the finger cutter would feel about that? Maybe they would just cower in the corner...

Ive read through the thread and haven't seen anyone say the guy didn't have a right to defend himself. Of course he did. The law allows it and for some its a natural instinct.
The cowering in the corner snipe simply reflects a macho bullshit attitude. No one knows how they would react until they are in the situation.

But hammering a butter knife through a finger was truly bizarre.

Even after many Googlings. The most puzzling part to me about everything in this thread, is...
What on earth "many of you LFAOs" means.

Originally Posted by jakewire

Even after many Googlings. The most puzzling part to me about everything in this thread, is...
What on earth "many of you LFAOs" means.

The LFAOs bit is licensed fire arms owner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by jakewire

Even after many Googlings. The most puzzling part to me about everything in this thread, is...
What on earth "many of you LFAOs" means.

Licensed Fire Arm Owners. You know, rational and responsible people who ought to understand what a proportional response is

Originally Posted by Tahr

Licensed Fire Arm Owners. You know, rational and responsible people who ought to understand what a proportional response is

And there is the whole crux of the matter " Proportional response " what will the law and this judge decide is a justified and allowable response to the situation under the law.

I've probably missed it somewhere, but, why did the perp keep making the journey to this guy's place time and time again. Did he have a chip about the old boy or just cos he appeared an easy target?

Faced with the same situation and gaining the upper hand by getting to a shotgun, I would have shot them both and worried about the consequences later.
I have asked several Police Officers over the years " Why dont Police aim to immobilize instead of aiming for centre mass"? Ans - ' I am putting my life at risk when facing an armed ( Knife, club, Machete etc) wielding crim so I will shoot to kill. This is just a job and am going home to my family when I finish my shift'
I am sure that faced with the same situation - knife and bottle wielding nut job, the Police would have shot him and that would be that.

Cops don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop, which is centre-of-mass aim. That's of course also shooting to kill, but only incidentally.

Get this order right before you make any statement after such a situation, God forbid.

Originally Posted by kidmac42

I've probably missed it somewhere, but, why did the perp keep making the journey to this guy's place time and time again. Did he have a chip about the old boy or just cos he appeared an easy target?

Yes. And the answer is pure terror.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Faced with the same situation and gaining the upper hand by getting to a shotgun, I would have shot them both and worried about the consequences later.
I have asked several Police Officers over the years " Why dont Police aim to immobilize instead of aiming for centre mass"? Ans - ' I am putting my life at risk when facing an armed ( Knife, club, Machete etc) wielding crim so I will shoot to kill. This is just a job and am going home to my family when I finish my shift'
I am sure that faced with the same situation - knife and bottle wielding nut job, the Police would have shot him and that would be that.

Were is the logic in this? You would have shot them after gaining the upper hand because the Police can or do? Well, you sure would suffer the consequences.

As the saying goes "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Originally Posted by Tahr

Were is the logic in this? You would have shot them after gaining the upper hand because the Police can or do? Well, you sure would suffer the consequences.

No not because the Police can or do do it. However the Police logic and training is to protect themselves whilst a threat still exists. They have training in these situations and we dont. The Police have examined how these situations play out and how to best handle them.
The crim still had a knife which he had not surrendered and would kill the farmer the instant positions were reversed which may well have happened had the crims mates (who had dropped him off) re-appeared. In that situation the farmer would certainly have lost his life.
What I am wishing to express is, that although I am not at all a violent person, if faced with a situation such as the farmer did with being attacked and traumatised, a bottle smashed over my head and told that I would be killed if I didn't hand over my keys, I know that I would be that wound-up and agro as well as protective of my family that I would shoot them as soon as I got the shotty. It is not a situation any of us who have not been in the services could handle rationally. If you yourself shot an intruder after that type of episode I would not think less of or judge you for it. In fact I am sure that most of us would shoot in the same situation - but then I also have a Trump sticker on display ... !

A knife is a very fast and lethal weapon at close range. Even if you have a gun in hand, a retained knife is very much a threat. God forbid I would have to face such a situation but in training I have definitely seen it demonstrated.

There's no question the butter knife thing is strange, but who knows, the truth will either come out in court or it will remain known only to those who were there.

It's not impossible that one or both parties in court could be lying about the events of the night either.
That does happen occasionally, and it isn't unheard of for the Herald to misrepirt it either.