3 teen burglars shot dead inside home they had broken into in the US

daveybgtt · Mar 28, 2017

I don't think you can call your shots unless you're some sort of trained marksman, all this "Shoot them in the leg" rubbish is very nice in theory, try it at 3am in the dark when you're in panic mode.

beorhthelm · Mar 28, 2017

you shoot someone in the leg, they turn and shot you dead. you do not shoot people in the leg.

Beach Hut · Mar 28, 2017

Watch American Justice on BBC2 right now to see how broken the USA judicial system really is now.

Buzzer · Mar 28, 2017

What others have said. If I'm at home with my family with access to a gun and 3 people tooled up and in balaclavas broke in I'd shoot them all in a heartbeat and not feel the slightest bit guilty.

whitelion · Mar 28, 2017

whitelion said:
Watched a TV programme the other week with a similar scenario in Florida whereby an alleged burglar was charged with the muder of his accomplice who was shot by the inhabitants of the apartment they were alleged to have attempted to rob.

He was acquitted though suffered serious gunshot wounds.

Beach Hut said:
Watch American Justice on BBC2 right now to see how broken the USA judicial system really is now.

That was the programme I was referring to in my quote above.

Compelling and also very disturbing. Tonight's programme a group of people (7) shot in an apparent case of mistaken identity. Eyewitnesses didn't come forward.

jakarta · Mar 28, 2017

beorhthelm said:
you shoot someone in the leg, they turn and shot you dead. you do not shoot people in the leg.

Exactly, for the last 15 years or I have worked with Hants, Surrey and Sussex Police Forces in their Firing Ranges.

The professionals are trained for either headshot or torso, both of which are immediate knockdown.

Reagulls · Mar 28, 2017

Buzzer said:
What others have said. If I'm at home with my family with access to a gun and 3 people tooled up and in balaclavas broke in I'd shoot them all in a heartbeat and not feel the slightest bit guilty.

My thoughts entirely ....

Guy Fawkes · Mar 28, 2017

Creaky said:
You are right of course but according to NIBRS, (the US National Incident Based Reporting System), violence during domestic burglary occurs in less than 1% of cases and murder is a result in less than 1% of those.

Those odds would I imagine be even lower if the burglars weren't confronted.

Would the outcome in this case have been different if the burglars had been armed with guns instead of a knife?

And that doesn't take into account all the times that a burglar flees as soon as they become aware that someone is in the house and (in the case of breaking in when the owner is asleep) that they are awake and likely to confront them. Burglars are not wanting to be seen (knife and knuckle dusters may have been a last resort if cornered and had to fight their way out rather than an aggressive approach)

The home owner shouting i have a gun and to get out of the house would probably have been just as effective a way to stop the burglary (even with them being unable to see the homeowner) and would have meant that these young adults would still be alive - the Police yell when entering a property on a raid so why would someone just open fire without giving them a chance to flee first and only fire if absolutely necessary?

The problem is that citizens are scared into thinking every burglar is out to kill or rape too and that you need to have firearms to keep yourself safe. (through the media reporting and propaganda from the gun industry that benefits from people feeling afraid and feeling the need to arm themselves) It's the mindset of the population to mistrust each other that leads to this need to shoot first, shoot later and shoot some more

The items stolen, if they had been successful would probably been replaced by the insurance company yet to many Americans (and a few people on here) think losing their life is justified to protect these replaceable possessions. They may be wrong for doing it, and they may have been caught anyway and punished legally through the courts, but they are still someone's son, someone's daughter and friends and family have lost people dear to them. If Martin McGuinness can go from a life of violence to peace, why couldn't these burglars have changed their ways in later life too and become useful members to society (and that's before you look at want led them to commit the burglary in the first place (desperation?)

rocker959 · Mar 28, 2017

Ron Manager said:
One thing is for certain, they won't do it again.

Awwwww such a shame my heart bleeds for them . Not .

Wrong-Direction · Mar 28, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
And that doesn't take into account all the times that a burglar flees as soon as they become aware that someone is in the house and (in the case of breaking in when the owner is asleep) that they are awake and likely to confront them. Burglars are not wanting to be seen (knife and knuckle dusters may have been a last resort if cornered and had to fight their way out rather than an aggressive approach)

The home owner shouting i have a gun and to get out of the house would probably have been just as effective a way to stop the burglary (even with them being unable to see the homeowner) and would have meant that these young adults would still be alive - the Police yell when entering a property on a raid so why would someone just open fire without giving them a chance to flee first and only fire if absolutely necessary?

The problem is that citizens are scared into thinking every burglar is out to kill or rape too and that you need to have firearms to keep yourself safe. (through the media reporting and propaganda from the gun industry that benefits from people feeling afraid and feeling the need to arm themselves) It's the mindset of the population to mistrust each other that leads to this need to shoot first, shoot later and shoot some more

The items stolen, if they had been successful would probably been replaced by the insurance company yet to many Americans (and a few people on here) think losing their life is justified to protect these replaceable possessions. They may be wrong for doing it, and they may have been caught anyway and punished legally through the courts, but they are still someone's son, someone's daughter and friends and family have lost people dear to them. If Martin McGuinness can go from a life of violence to peace, why couldn't these burglars have changed their ways in later life too and become useful members to society (and that's before you look at want led them to commit the burglary in the first place (desperation?)

A chav isn't a chav through desperation, a chav is a chav because they're a c***.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Guy Fawkes · Mar 28, 2017

Wrong-Direction said:
A chav isn't a chav through desperation, a chav is a chav because they're a c***.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

A chav who lives to 100 may not be a chav for all his life

Wrong-Direction · Mar 28, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
A chav who lives to 100 may not be a chav for all his life

What about all the lives the chav ruined for doing chavy such things

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Miami Seagull · Mar 28, 2017

Creaky said:
Not sure I could live with myself having killed three teenagers in order to protect my household items.

Agreed..but protecting myself and / or my family is a different story

Eeyore · Mar 28, 2017

Raleigh Chopper said:
You can't have much then, what have you got, bin bags for curtains?
Oh and don't forget, after they have held a knife to your throat while the others ransack your stuff, if they trip up on a rug in their haste to get out, you will be arrested for failing to provide a duty of care to your 'visitors'.
I'd bloody love to shoot a burglar, and the **** that keyed my van.

The assertion that people are charged for protecting their property is often overplayed. Very few cases are prosecuted these days. A lot of burglers have tried it on but failed.

There was a case not so long ago where an intruder was chased and battered to a pulp suffering brain damage. The pursuers were charged in this case and found 'not guilty'.

Eeyore · Mar 28, 2017

My Dad is ex-forces and always said that the policy in danger is 'shoot to maim' rather than take life (where possible).

I think people have a right to protect their property and their own. Whether in this case it was possible to avoid fatality is anyone's guess.

Birdie Boy · Mar 28, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
And that doesn't take into account all the times that a burglar flees as soon as they become aware that someone is in the house and (in the case of breaking in when the owner is asleep) that they are awake and likely to confront them. Burglars are not wanting to be seen (knife and knuckle dusters may have been a last resort if cornered and had to fight their way out rather than an aggressive approach)

The home owner shouting i have a gun and to get put of the house would probably have been just as effective a way to stop the burglary (even with them being unable to see the homeowner) and would have meant that these young adults would still be alive - the Police yell when entering a property on a raid so why would someone just open fire without giving them a chance to flee first and only fire if absolutely necessary?

The problem is that citizens are scared into thinking every burglar is out to kill or rape too and that you need to have firearms to keep yourself safe. (through the media reporting and propaganda from the gun industry that benefits from people feeling afraid and feeling the need to arm themselves) It's the mindset of the population to mistrust each other that leads to this need to shoot first, shoot later and shoot some more

The items stolen, if they had been successful would probably been replaced by the insurance company yet to many Americans (and a few people on here) think losing their life is justified to protect these replaceable possessions. They may be wrong for doing it, and they may have been caught anyway and punished legally through the courts, but they are still someone's son, someone's daughter and friends and family have lost people dear to them. If Martin McGuinness can go from a life of violence to peace, why couldn't these burglars have changed their ways in later life too and become useful members to society (and that's before you look at want led them to commit the burglary in the first place (desperation?)

We don't know that he didn't shout out that he has a gun, do we?

Coldeanseagull · Mar 28, 2017

Creaky said:
Not sure I could live with myself having killed three teenagers in order to protect my household items.

If three hooded thugs (regardless of age) broke in armed with something that could cause me or other people in my family serious harm, I wouldn't know how I'd react to it. If it happened and I had been brought up in the states and I was armed with an assault rifle.......go team kill the *******s

crookie · Mar 29, 2017

Could quite easily be a split second decision. Could you quite hoestly process the thought that you want to shoot, but not to kill, what happens if you screw that up and miss, the others are on you, you're probably a dead man and your family could well be too, or at least seriously assaulted. What a position to find yourself in and that young man will live with the decision he made for the rest of his life. Imagine if the situation was in your house in this country, you'd be buggered unless you were military trained. Life is cheap over there and these 3 chancers knew that. You have to be some kind of prize idiot to burgle a house in the US without knowing it is empty, bearing in mind most people own a gun.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

Triggaaar · Mar 29, 2017

hitony said:
To be honest, given the circumstances, I totally agree, just read this out to my wife (including the original post describing the details) and we agree, if a weapon were to hand, everyone deserves the right of self defense........at my age, sadly I cant take on 3 guys who are hell bent on causing theft, hurt and destruction.
My / our opinion, I don't expect everyone to agree.

I agree, and there could be circumstances where he was rushed by them all and had to shoot them all. I'd like to know the details though, as I'm surprised none of the burglars changed their mind and decided to leave.

dangull said:
Maybe shooting 1 or more of the burglars in the legs maybe have been more appropriate force. The others would probably run off. If not shoot at them in the same way. Any more a threat, then fatally shooting them would be acceptable.

Mmm...

"Alright, good try lads, but you've lost"
"No we haven't!"
"But I've shot all your legs."
"We've still got arms"

Jim Van Winkle · Mar 29, 2017

ATFC Seagull said:
Regarding the debate about whether or not it seems like these teenagers were looking for violence or not: Don't forget that the definition of burglary (in the UK at least, unsure about the USA and even less about Oklahoma specifically) doesn't just mean nicking stuff - they could well have been going into his house with the intention to assault/kill/kidnap.

I can't say I'd be comfortable with having shot 3 people, but equally not sure I can judge.

The Yanks call it a 'home invasion'. They love a good invasion it's in their DNA.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

3 teen burglars shot dead inside home they had broken into in the US

New member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Brighton Bhuna Boy

Languidly Clinical

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

The voice of treason

Well-known member

Well-known member

The voice of treason

Well-known member

Grandad

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park

Well-known member

Opinionated

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page