Recent home invaders thwarted by gun owners

[madoka]

http://news.yahoo.com/young-boy-13-at-home-alone-shoots-suspected-113457018.html

A suspected burglar was shot dead by a 13-year-old boy who used his mother’s Colt. 45 pistol to defend himself while home alone.

On seeing a man entering the home through the back the young teen from Charleston, South Carolina, grabbed the gun and fired at him.

An exchange of gunfire in the home ensued

http://ktla.com/2015/11/10/breastfe...to-fend-off-home-intruders-in-north-carolina/

Semantha Bunce, 21, a combat medic in the National Guard, was in her Charlotte home breast-feeding her 4-month-old son in her bedroom when intruders barged in Tuesday, November 3, according to CNN affiliate WSOC.

As the intruders broke into the home and opened fire, Bunce fired back with her own weapon.

So for gun control advocates, what's your solution to situations like these when multiple armed criminals enter homes? How should the old, the young, or women defend themselves against multiple armed male attackers?

 

[senseamp]

According to Charleston Police Department, the boy kept firing at the two suspects even when they fled the scene in a car, resulting in gunshot holes in the vehicle.

AKA attempted murder.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

AKA attempted murder.

THAT is what you want to see happen from this case? An attempted murder charge filed and prosecuted against this boy?

 

[senseamp]

THAT is what you want to see happen from this case? An attempted murder charge filed and prosecuted against this boy?

He did fire a gun at a fleeing vehicle. So yes. What do you want to see happen?

 

[Newell Steamer]

I agree with defending your home in situations like this.

I support gun ownership for handguns - carrying a handgun and having one in your home.

Also, the woman was shot, twice, by the home invader. Glad she made it and was able to defend herself.

Aside from shooting at the fleeing criminals, I support the gun owner's actions.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

AKA attempted murder.

Yes, attack the victim.

 

[senseamp]

I am just reading what is reported. Shooting at a fleeing vehicle on a public street is not castle doctrine, and it's not self defense. He was a victim until he did that. After that, he became a perpetrator.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

THAT is what you want to see happen from this case? An attempted murder charge filed and prosecuted against this boy?

That's what I'd like to see happen. There is a huge, easily distinguishable line between home defense and wildly firing a gun in public endangering everyone in the area. You blow away a guy in your own home you deserve a medal, you try to blow away a guy fleeing in public you deserve a cell.

 

[Genx87]

That's what I'd like to see happen. There is a huge, easily distinguishable line between home defense and wildly firing a gun in public endangering everyone in the area. You blow away a guy in your own home you deserve a medal, you try to blow away a guy fleeing in public you deserve a cell.

I am just reading what is reported. Shooting at a fleeing vehicle on a public street is not castle doctrine, and it's not self defense. He was a victim until he did that. After that, he became a perpetrator.

That is the spirit. Throw the book at a 13 year old.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That is the spirit. Throw the book at a 13 year old.

Yep blame him and not the criminals that broke into his house.

 

[Newell Steamer]

So, if the 13 yr old's bullets hit and killed someone, then they could add more time to the criminal's sentence? As well as try him for the murder of the bystander who was struck by the teen's bullets?

Is this true? Or are we in Righthadist Dreamland again?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

That is the spirit. Throw the book at a 13 year old.

And the alternative is to excuse blindly firing a gun in public simply because the perp is 13? Newsflash here, the kid is a criminal. No civilians have a legal right to engage in gun fights in public places regardless of age. When that kid left his house and chased those guys onto a public street trying to kill them he became a more dangerous criminal than they were.

 

[OutHouse]

THAT is what you want to see happen from this case? An attempted murder charge filed and prosecuted against this boy?

make him an honorary cop.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep blame him and not the criminals that broke into his house.

Why not blame both? I'm totally against 'throwing the book' at this person because they are a child and 13 year olds can't reasonably be expected to know what they are supposed to do in that situation.

It does illustrate something that's often overlooked though, which is that examples of self defense with a firearm are often crimes in their own right.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

And the alternative is to excuse blindly firing a gun in public simply because the perp is 13? Newsflash here, the kid is a criminal. No civilians have a legal right to engage in gun fights in public places regardless of age. When that kid left his house and chased those guys onto a public street trying to kill them he became a more dangerous criminal than they were.

I see both sides to this. The problem (in my mind) is that a 13 year old doesn't (and shouldn't be expected) know the legal statutes of "When you can fire safely" and "When you can't fire safely".

He doesn't know his state statutes. Does his state have stand your ground? He probably doesn't even know the legal definition of that, let alone if it applies to his state. His parents likely just told him that if he can safely defend himself from an intruder to do so.

I'm not saying the boy gets a free pass, nor am I saying charge him for murder. That is a tricky one - which is something for a court to decide.

 

[senseamp]

That is the spirit. Throw the book at a 13 year old.

Red state prosecutors do it all the time, especially for black 13 year olds. Unlike them, I would try him as a juvenile, which he is.
Don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Based on other new reports I don't believe the boy shot at them as fled down the street and all the shots including those that struck the car happened behind his house.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/1...arolina-teen-used-mother-gun-to-kill-burglar/

The boy said he heard a vehicle pull up behind his house, then heard someone trying get inside a few minutes later. At that point, the teen picked up his mother's gun and went to the back door of the home.

Authorities said the boy told them he fired the gun through the door and the person outside fired back. The boy fired several more shots, apparently wounding the suspect. According to Fox Carolina, neighbors reported hearing gunshots before seeing a gray car pull out near the home and speed away.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

And the alternative is to excuse blindly firing a gun in public simply because the perp is 13?

Wait, where in the article did it say the kid was "blindly" firing?

No civilians have a legal right to engage in gun fights in public places regardless of age. When that kid left his house and chased those guys onto a public street trying to kill them he became a more dangerous criminal than they were.

The gun fight began in the house and spilled over into the street. A gun fight isn't over until one side is either incapacitated, disarmed, or out of sight. People in cars can still shoot.

And age matters a lot in this case. He isn't considered mentally and/or physically fit to drive, smoke, drink, or sign contracts. And yet you want to drop the hammer on the rest of his childhood for not correctly-enough handling the single most terrifying ordeal he may ever experience in his life. He probably already feels jacked up about taking a life. Try a little empathy. I think you could find it in you to have a little lenience.

 

[CPA]

He did fire a gun at a fleeing vehicle. So yes. What do you want to see happen?

The f'in key to the city.

 

[senseamp]

The f'in key to the city.

OK, maybe to your trailer park city.

 

[Strk]

Let's see how this would affect things:

• People who can pass a national background check can still buy a gun
• Ban on assault rifles has zero affect on handguns
• Responsible gun owners can still own guns

So my guess is the affect gun control would have had on these two situations would be somewhere between jack and shit.

 

[adamantine.me]

Well if they lock up that young man for defending himself with probably very little prior knowledge and experience to go off of, he'll definitely have one thing: time to brood about a broken legal system.

 

[OutHouse]

No civilians have a legal right to engage in gun fights in public places

care to back that up with the law?

ill be here waiting.

 

[Genx87]

And the alternative is to excuse blindly firing a gun in public simply because the perp is 13? Newsflash here, the kid is a criminal. No civilians have a legal right to engage in gun fights in public places regardless of age. When that kid left his house and chased those guys onto a public street trying to kill them he became a more dangerous criminal than they were.

Who is excusing him? And who is going to let an adult off doing the same? I can see past the black and white letter of the law and recognize this is a 13 year old kid who had just gone through a tramatic experience of intruders in his home. I can excuse his behavior given nobody was actually injured by his actions, except the criminal. But if you want to go all Judge Smails on a 13 year old by all means continue.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am just reading what is reported. Shooting at a fleeing vehicle on a public street is not castle doctrine, and it's not self defense. He was a victim until he did that. After that, he became a perpetrator.

Really, I think he wanted to send the message, don't turn around and come back to shoot at me again because I'm ready.