British Pensioner 78, Arrested For Murder Against Home Intruders

[carpro]

It's surprising how unpredictable it actually is.

It appears that he assumes our only intent is to kill when faced with a home intruder. Shooting to wound is simply idiotic. A really good way to get yourself killed.

I am trained to shoot to neutralize the threat. Meaning I aim at the largest target I can, center mass. Whether the intruder lives or dies is simply not up to me. The outcome is more in his hands than mine. He didn't have to break into my home. Being shot could be considered a probable result of such lawbreaking.
My instructions to my wife in the event of my absence or inability to stop the threat, are entirely different.. Although familiar with the operation and use of a firearm, she is not an expert marksman, and has limited experience. The weapon she has chosen as her bedside defense weapon holds 17 cartridges of 9MM, and she shouldn't be afraid to use them all, if the assailant is still moving at all. Simply can't take the chance on him getting up and back into action.

 

[Benjamin]

It appears that he assumes our only intent is to kill when faced with a home intruder. Shooting to wound is simply idiotic. A really good way to get yourself killed.

What I haven’t said is that it is taught by defense instructors that they should shoot someone in the leg, I know full well they don’t teach that, I said that if I have the opportunity and ability [key words] to do so I would regardless of the world’s instructions and this is because I (personally) answer to God for my actions. I've justified my actions as such:

...but maybe you would like to claim that opportunity can never exist? Otherwise, if the opportunity might exist, I'd like you see you address my justification for MY actions in such a case to prove how "simply idiotic" I am.

I only hear your arguments based on common practice, popularity and groupthink fallacies but I do not conform my thoughts and actions to that type of reasoning.

I’m not interested in qualifying toward having the worldly standards as an “expert” gun carrier if those standards are in conflict with my God given conscience and defy my abilities to better serve my Lord.

I have a choice, a higher standard to live by and the free will in such situations which I will be accountable for by a Just God whose all His ways are judgment, in truth.

My fears are under control and go far beyond the judgment of those which conform to the use of these tools according to this world’s values.

Mat 10:28

(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[TCassidy]

but when someone tries to tell me, a Christian gun carrying conservative that believes he has every right to defend himself, his family and the innocent with lethal force if necessary, - that there is only one acceptable way to protect your home and that is to mercilessly shoot any intruder in your habitat, armed or not, without any other considerations until they are dead and that this is the only standard without exceptation is “the” operational procedure.

Nobody in this thread has made such an assertion.

Which is what I'm hearing, well...

Then you are hearing things.

I’m sorry, but yes, as a Christian I live by higher standards than that, if I have the opportunity and ability to spare a life I’m going to show some courage, grace and faith in God and do so.

Nobody has suggested a life that could be spared should not be. And your assertion that you are more spiritual than the rest of us because we have been there and done that is probably a violation of the BB rules.

If your argument is that the world teaches any gun owner to put away their values and grace, guess what, I’ve learned the hard way not to put my faith in the values that the world teaches and early on in my relationship with the Lord He wrote the words of Romans 12:2 on my heart:

That, of course, is not his argument. Nor is it anyone else's argument in this thread.

So to begin an argument that equates to telling me to put away my values for what the world teaches carries absolutely no weight with me besides my recognizing the multiple fallacies that people commonly use to support that kind of thinking.

Nobody has done so. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

are you going to try to tell me that there is never the opportunity to spare the life of an intruder that had entered your home?

Nobody has made such an assertion.

Are you telling me that the “canon” rule is to always finish off anyone you have to use deadly force of a gun on without exception?

Nobody has even suggested that.

Are you telling me that no defensive weapons instructor would ever agree that the opportunity might arise to spare a life and that all qualified instructors would insist that I always finish off anyone I were ever to shoot at?

Nobody has said that either.

Maybe most importantly are you going to try to tell me that I should put my Christian values and standards aside based on what the world thinks is acceptable,

Again, nobody has suggested any such thing.

"Just because I can legally justify deadly force doesn't mean I should use it, as a Christian I live by higher laws."

Nobody has said anything else. And, again, thinking you are more spiritual than we are is the epitome of pride.

 

[carpro]

...but maybe you would like to claim that opportunity can never exist? Otherwise, if the opportunity might exist, I'd like you see you address my justification for MY actions in such a case to prove how "simply idiotic" I am.

When facing an assailant who has broken into your home, if you decide it is necessary to shoot and you shoot to wound, you are an idiot.

End of story. There is nothing to discuss.

 

[HankD]

I agree Hank, but that, him bleeding to death because I had to shoot him to be safe might be the risk he'd have to suffer if he was an intruder that entered my home and didn't obey my command.

But, would you believe I'd be more more inclined to put a tourniquet around his leg to save his life after I'm sure the threat is over than put a couple bullets in his head? Call me crazy.

No, I understand things are unpredictable and and I wouldn't be taking any risk as I judged the situation and this includes taking into account I might have to shoot to kill before being able to make the assessment that I might have a way to be safe in handling it another way.

I merely contend the opportunity might exist to spare a life.

Ideally.

 

[Reynolds]

I agree Hank, but that, him bleeding to death because I had to shoot him to be safe might be the risk he'd have to suffer if he was an intruder that entered my home and didn't obey my command.

But, would you believe I'd be more more inclined to put a tourniquet around his leg to save his life after I'm sure the threat is over than put a couple bullets in his head? Call me crazy.

No, I understand things are unpredictable and and I wouldn't be taking any risk as I judged the situation and this includes taking into account I might have to shoot to kill before being able to make the assessment that I might have a way to be safe in handling it another way.

I merely contend the opportunity might exist to spare a life.

Its not a video game. If you guess wrong, there us no reset button.

 

[carpro]

As a peace officer, I was justified on many occasions to use deadly force. I always avoided using it even at risk to my own safety. On the other hand, if you invade my house I am not going to risk losing the confrontation because that would put my family in jeopardy.

I am not a "peace officer" and never have been and my training was somewhat different. Being a correctional officer, I am required, not allowed to, but required to use deadly force in the event of an attempted escape if it appears that recapture is not imminent.. But I am also allowed to use deadly force to prevent bodily harm to myself or others. Using deadly force does not mean that you have to kill, but have to shoot..

I don't even carry a weapon often, just in the case of prisoner transport. I have many times worn a pistol while sitting outside the door of a hospital room occupied by an inmate. One officer is in the room armed only with pepper foam and a riot baton, and the other is outside the door with a 357 magnum. The outside officer is to never enter the room, no matter what happens, and must be aware that he is the very last line of defense for the hospital staff against a dangerous criminal getting loose among them. It is his duty to bring down the inmate if he in the process of defeating, or does defeat, the officer in the room. Under no circumstances will the inmate be allowed to leave the room, even if he takes the inside officer hostage. Whether or not the inmate is armed makes no difference and we are always to aim center mass.

The only other time I am equipped with weapons is working a perimeter tower or perimeter patrol. I am equipped with a 12 guage shotgun, an AR 15 and the 357 magnum. The responsibilty there is the same as a transport, I am required to use deadly force in the event of an attempted escape if it appears that recapture is not imminent.

If I do not do my duty, I am certainly subject to termination, and in some circumstances subject to prosecution. What that means is that , if I draw my weapon in the line of duty, there is a pretty good chance someone is going to get shot. We don't arrest anyone. Of course, that doesn't mean I can legally shoot an inmate who has stopped his escape attempt and is allowing himself to be recaptured.

I would be charged with murder.

 

[Benjamin]

You guys seem to really like these generic standards you've been taught and really seem to hate my variation that merely suggests a true possibility of an opportunity and a preferable action on my part that dares to challenge the status quo which supposedly goes as far here as to claim you should always put a couple in the head for good measure without questioning the generic standard authority.

Sorry, I guess I'm just a rebel when it comes to questioning authority.

Much to do, time to go…but glad if I was able to provide some entertainment for the weekend.

 

[Reynolds]

You guys seem to really like these generic standards you've been taught and really seem to hate my variation that merely suggests a true possibility of an opportunity and a preferable action on my part that dares to challenge the status quo which supposedly goes as far here as to claim you should always put a couple in the head for good measure without questioning the generic standard authority.

Sorry, I guess I'm just a rebel when it comes to questioning authority.

Much to do, time to go…but glad if I was able to provide some entertainment for the weekend.

You are again either demonstrating first grade level reading comprehension or being intentionally dishonest.

 

[David Kent]

You all seem to be future murderers rather than Christians.

 

[HankD]

You all seem to be future murderers rather than Christians.

Self defense is not murder.

 

[David Kent]

What has been discussed is not self defence.

 

[kyredneck]

Sorry, I guess I'm just a rebel when it comes to questioning authority.

Well I don't know about all that, I do know that in the event of heated armed conflict "aim for center mass" is embedded from my training, and that's what I'll do. Shoot for center mass.

 

[HankD]

Self defense is not murder.

putting evil doers to death is self defense.

 

[David Kent]

putting evil doers to death is self defense.

Yes that is the unregenerate worldly view, not the Christian view.

 

[HankD]

Yes that is the unregenerate worldly view, not the Christian view.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 

[David Kent]

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Who is the bearer of the sword? The Ruler.

 

[Benjamin]

You are again either demonstrating first grade level reading comprehension or being intentionally dishonest.

Your reply to me wherein your [Edit: Name calling] supported you taking opposition to my view in the extreme as you boasted about proper "expert" training protocol and what it consisted of is on full display a couple pages back and I trust the average reader to be able to comprehend and discern for himself if someone is not being honest and resorting to personal attacks to defend their position rather than addressing the issues.

Other than that I have no more time for debating about personal attacks and/or the reasons for the tactics some typically use here to try to fabricate them are not important to me and I won't be pursuing the matter.

 

[Benjamin]

Well I don't know about all that, I do know that in the event of heated armed conflict "aim for center mass" is embedded from my training, and that's what I'll do. Shoot for center mass.

I would agree with you there that would be the correct response

 

[Reynolds]

Your reply to me wherein your [Edit: Name calling] supported you taking opposition to my view in the extreme as you boasted about proper "expert" training protocol and what it consisted of is on full display a couple pages back and I trust the average reader to be able to comprehend and discern for himself if someone is not being honest and resorting to personal attacks to defend their position rather than addressing the issues.

Other than that I have no more time for debating about personal attacks and/or the reasons for the tactics some typically use here to try to fabricate them are not important to me and I won't be pursuing the matter.

Quote what is said accurately next time.