I wouldn't have lost a moment's sleep shooting that guy.

>Yup, someone chases me through 3 locked doors and up into the attic - that's a Darwin Award in the making.
>
>Except it's just not funny.
>
>
>>Well, well, well.... Update:
>>
>>http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite
>>
>>make sure you read the second & third paragraphs Info that wasn't in the original article, but that we tried to explain to you here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>This trigger-happy thinking you have is whats wrong with people having guns today. Plus this "well its all his fault" attitude is for trigger happy rednecks with no morals. The idea of shooting someone should only come up if you've exhausted everything else. I think lying it wait to kill someone like this doesn't cut it with me. You warn the guy you gotta gun and he breaks in anyway - well there ya go.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wow, your comments here are reallllllly wacko.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1) Because she owns a gun for self defense, she's "trigger happy"??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2) As for your second sentence, ummm, it WAS his fault
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>3) Again with the "trigger happy" comments. You labeled a citizen who was well within her rights to defend herself & her kids a "trigger happy redneck with no morals." whaaa???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>4) Think the criminal who broke in would have wait until she "exhausted everything else"??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>5) The woman took her kids to the 3rd floor and hid in closet. How in the world do you get "lying in wait to kill someone" out of that????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>6) Maybe you don't know this, so I'll clue you in. You said "You warn the guy you gotta gun and he breaks in anyway..." - ummm, you have the right to defend you family & property.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're exactly the kind of person this thug would prefer to run into. Instead, he met someone with some balls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Put broken record ON:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ONCE AGAIN - the point I'm TRYING to make here is that all this COULD of been avoided if the shooter handled it differently. At the end of the day the guy had no gun and if he'd been made aware the shooter had one then the shooter wouldn't of had to shoot. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Put broken record OFF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only one not getting it is you. The point is that this guy broke into that house with ill intents, and just like a rabid dog, he needed to be put down. There was no "handling it differently" because she handled him exactly as he needed to be handled. Anything less and she'd be dead right now. You really think that if she had yelled "I have a gun" that that would have deterred him? A career criminal isn't going to stop no matter what.
>>>>>
>>>>>hmmm...I'd say we're at an inpasse then because I think if she had yelled "I have a gun" that it would of deterred him....seeing how I've seen this tactic work before. I also don't think the death penalty is appropriate for breaking & entering and don't think it's proper to treat a human as a "rabid dog". Now you say she handled him exactly as he needed to be handled. If that's the case it's because instead of handling differently at the onset she chose to cuddle up with her gun and hide her presence all together. Ever consider that if the dude knew the house was full of people he wouldn't be attempting to break into it to begin with? There are a lot of things that could of been done here to avoid a shooting. Was it legal for her to do it? Based on what I know, yes. But just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should...and that doesn't change the fact that instead of getting on the phone to make a few phone calls (like to her husband for example) she could of been yelling "I have a gun" and maybe shoot off a bullet or two into the floor so he knows that you really do have one. So you think the guy, standing at a door with a crowbar, is going to go ahead and finish breaking in, now knowing that the house is full of people - at least one of which is armed...which the cops on the way? hahahahaha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your entire argument is based on the assumption that the criminal is a logical person. Most arn't.
>>>
>>>One doesn't necessarily have to be logical to grasp self preservation.
>>>
>>>>I'm an NRA member, and when you sign up you get a free magazine, and I chose American Rifleman. In it is a section called The Armed Citizen, which is a section detailing ordinary citizens using firearms to defend themselves against thugs such as this. In a lot of the cases of break-ins the criminal is confronted by an armed homeowner and continues to approach or even attack the person who is forced to shoot to defend themselves. Yelling "I have a gun" won't stop someone who is bent on getting in & killing you.
>>>
>>>Ok so an article by a NRA backed magazine called "Armed Citizen" suggests using a gun..excuse me if I don't put a whole lot of stock in the non-bias of that article. Anyway what you're suggesting here is that the intruder is interested in attacking the people within the house. Seeing how this guy rummaged around 2 other floors of the house before stumbling across the homeowner I'd say it's safe to say his intent/focus was on the contents of the house worth stealing - not the people inside the house. Hey look if she'd made it apparent that a) there were people in the house and b) that at least one of the people was armed I still think they're might not of been a shooting. Doing what she did merely guaranteed a shooting would take place....at least with my approach there is an opportunity to avoid taking a life. I'm not blaming the victim here - but did this person do all they could to avoid shooting someone? Hell no. This is where I think you and W.K. have a disconnect with me. I gather that you guys would rather shoot first just because you legally can. I consider myself above such vigilante thug actions.