Senior Citizen Who Kills 2 Repeat Intruders with Inherited Gun is Jailed. Home Condemned.

Trade said:
True, however the second amendment covers both. The first part of it speaks to the militia and the second part speaks to the individual. What else could the term "the people" mean but individuals?

As for gun laws all they are good for is to make it a pain in the butt for responsible law abiding citizens like this poor schmuck to have guns. They are no more than a speed bump at best for criminals.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 

I would like to take this opportunity to make one thing clear. Please do not construe from my position on guns that I am on the far right political. I am in fact on the far left. However, we on the far left like our guns too.:bigwink:

fidel11-vi.gif
 
"The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and almost killed."

And there lies the fatal flaw in logic continually invoked by the pro-gun lobby when it suits their proclivities. Earlier in the article, it made clear that the burglars were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the homeowner with an itchy finger.
But the writer of the article hopes the readers will forget that fact, and go along with his proud bellowing about how this man's life was in danger from two unarmed burglars sneaking around.
Now, before I'm accused of being pro-burglar, I'm not. He certainly had a right to be alarmed, as we all would be. But did that give him the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner? What if it had been two kids playing a prank? He was apparently a good shot. Couldn't he have just fired off a warning shot to scare them away, or lock himself in a room and call 911? Even if he was justified in shooting at them, the way the article immediately jumps from saying the burglars were unarmed to saying he had a right to shoot them because his life was in danger, weakens the whole pro-gun case.

​
 
Sunny said:
"The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and almost killed."

And there lies the fatal flaw in logic continually invoked by the pro-gun lobby when it suits their proclivities. Earlier in the article, it made clear that the burglars were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the homeowner with an itchy finger.
But the writer of the article hopes the readers will forget that fact, and go along with his proud bellowing about how this man's life was in danger from two unarmed burglars sneaking around.
Now, before I'm accused of being pro-burglar, I'm not. He certainly had a right to be alarmed, as we all would be. But did that give him the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner? What if it had been two kids playing a prank? He was apparently a good shot. Couldn't he have just fired off a warning shot to scare them away, or lock himself in a room and call 911? Even if he was justified in shooting at them, the way the article immediately jumps from saying the burglars were unarmed to saying he had a right to shoot them because his life was in danger, weakens the whole pro-gun case.

​
Click to expand...

So "early in the article" it said the burglars were unarmed, but did the homeowner KNOW that?? Sorry, but if two strangers broke into my home, I don't immediately suspect they are here for any good purpose. I have guns... and I would probably react the same as that homeowner out of fear.

Note to burglars: Enter (unlawfully) at your own risk.
 
Camper6 said:
I think if your life is in danger then taking a life is justified.
Click to expand...

C'est Moi said:
Sorry, but if two strangers broke into my home, I don't immediately suspect they are here for any good purpose. I have guns... and I would probably react the same as that homeowner out of fear.

Note to burglars: Enter (unlawfully) at your own risk.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of you, I'd do the same thing if intruders broke into my home and would not stop at my warning. The aunt of the intruder was no angel, she was a criminal herself and very capable of doing harm to the man with the help of her young nephew. Glad the home owner is out of jail. More here.

Wolber said he fully believes Stolarczyk was justified in shooting and killing the two intruders and doesn’t expect any more charges. He plans to ask the district attorney to dismiss the gun charge as well “in the interest of justice.”

Patricia Talerico was currently on parole for a weapons charge. She was sentenced to 1 1/2 years to 3 years in prison for third-degree attempted criminal possession of a weapon in 2016, according to the state Department of Corrections and Community Supervision records. She was released in June 2018.

She also served time in state prison for grand larceny in 2010; she was released in 2011, state records show.
Click to expand...
 
It said in one of the articles I read that the arrest was only due to the gun inherited from the man's father was not registered under his name. They said something like this was generally considered a misdemeanor, so the charges would be reduced.
 
Doesn't sound like your home has ever been burglarized... It leaves a thought and feeling that you were violated and an unexplainable uneasy feeling. These days robbers are busting open doors and robbing and beating people and many time they are seniors. I now have a German Shephred dog and have always had guns. I don't think you are pro-burglar, but I do think you are not street wise. I do beleive that if we ever lose the right to own guns only robbers will have guns.
Sunny said:
"The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and almost killed."

And there lies the fatal flaw in logic continually invoked by the pro-gun lobby when it suits their proclivities. Earlier in the article, it made clear that the burglars were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the homeowner with an itchy finger.
But the writer of the article hopes the readers will forget that fact, and go along with his proud bellowing about how this man's life was in danger from two unarmed burglars sneaking around.
Now, before I'm accused of being pro-burglar, I'm not. He certainly had a right to be alarmed, as we all would be. But did that give him the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner? What if it had been two kids playing a prank? He was apparently a good shot. Couldn't he have just fired off a warning shot to scare them away, or lock himself in a room and call 911? Even if he was justified in shooting at them, the way the article immediately jumps from saying the burglars were unarmed to saying he had a right to shoot them because his life was in danger, weakens the whole pro-gun case.

​
Click to expand...
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Sunny, with all respect to you, I don't see a person protecting his or her life, family, home, or possessions as "trigger happy gun-nuts".

I'm sure you heard of Dr. Petit in CT that night two intruders came in. Had Dr. Petit been armed when he investigated the break-in, he wouldn't have been bashed in the head, tied up and thrown down the basement stairs unconscious.

His wife would not have been raped, and taken to the bank by one to get them cash, while the two daughters, ages 17 and 11 were tied to their beds at home by the other, raped, doused with gasoline and set on fire, alive.

They killed the wife, too. The Dr. regained consciousness, heard the men upstairs and called to a neighbor for help. Too late.

I honestly could not have blamed Dr. Petit for executing those monsters by shooting them before losing his family.
 
Norman, considering that you know nothing about me, you're jumping to a lot of unfounded conclusions. Yes, my home has been burglarized, fortunately only once. It was the night of my daughter's high school graduation. There was an article in the Post about all the burglaries that took place that night in suburban DC.

They must have been the world's dumbest burglars. They "specialized" in silver, hitting mostly the dining room and helping themselves to silver plated flatware, trays, serving pieces, etc. Yet, they left the most valuable piece of silver we had lying there in its case, on the dining room table. It was my daughter's flute, easily worth more than all the stuff they helped themselves to.

Yes, I was angry (and halfway amused at the same time), but never had any desire to own a gun, then or now. "Stuff" just isn't that important to me. This happened im 1980. In the years since then, enough harm has been done by the proliferation of guns to make the guns much more of an atrocity than the theft of a few items, especially when done by unarmed burglars. It's just a matter of which is the worse offense, stealing or shooting burglars, who could just as easily be kids, teenaged drug addicts, mentally sick people, etc. as the rapists and head bashers, Radish.
 
I certainly respect your feelings. Each of us are different, as for me I am still mad at the person or persons who broke into my home and took jewelry, some that can not be replaced. I was trusting and never thought it would happen to me. If I was to find them I would hope for jail time. I now have a security system and can even view the rooms on my cell phone when gone. If it happens again the police can do it or me...
Sunny said:
Norman, considering that you know nothing about me, you're jumping to a lot of unfounded conclusions. Yes, my home has been burglarized, fortunately only once. It was the night of my daughter's high school graduation. There was an article in the Post about all the burglaries that took place that night in suburban DC.

They must have been the world's dumbest burglars. They "specialized" in silver, hitting mostly the dining room and helping themselves to silver plated flatware, trays, serving pieces, etc. Yet, they left the most valuable piece of silver we had lying there in its case, on the dining room table. It was my daughter's flute, easily worth more than all the stuff they helped themselves to.

Yes, I was angry (and halfway amused at the same time), but never had any desire to own a gun, then or now. "Stuff" just isn't that important to me. This happened im 1980. In the years since then, enough harm has been done by the proliferation of guns to make the guns much more of an atrocity than the theft of a few items, especially when done by unarmed burglars. It's just a matter of which is the worse offense, stealing or shooting burglars, who could just as easily be kids, teenaged drug addicts, mentally sick people, etc. as the rapists and head bashers, Radish.
Click to expand...
 
Sunny said:
And potential executioners and trigger-happy gun nuts should consider whether they are ready to go to prison.
Click to expand...

I agree. I can imagine there could be situations where I might attempt to kill someone to stop them hurting my family. In that case I might discover an inner ferocity that is more instinctual than reasoned. However, I would expect to be charged and face a court for judgement.

I would never consider killing someone to stop them taking my TV or jewellery, for example. Theft should never be considered a capital offence.

IMO, every life is precious and every sudden death must be taken seriously. That is why we have coroners courts and autopsies. That is why we hold reckless or negligent drivers accountable for road traffic fatalities.
 
C'est Moi said:
So "early in the article" it said the burglars were unarmed, but did the homeowner KNOW that?? Sorry, but if two strangers broke into my home, I don't immediately suspect they are here for any good purpose. I have guns... and I would probably react the same as that homeowner out of fear.

Note to burglars: Enter (unlawfully) at your own risk.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree! Regardless of their age or whether they were armed, the burglars broke in to this man's home, which is by its very nature a threat to him,and is by the way against the law. If somebody comes crashing into my home, I am certainly not going to ask them exactly what their intentions are, i.e., burglary,rape or murder, or how old they are, or whether they are armed.
 
Sunny said:
"The issue is rather that local officials are so fanatical in their enforcement of this controversial rule that they’re willing to charge a guy who was just burglarized and almost killed."

And there lies the fatal flaw in logic continually invoked by the pro-gun lobby when it suits their proclivities. Earlier in the article, it made clear that the burglars were unarmed. The only person with a gun was the homeowner with an itchy finger.
But the writer of the article hopes the readers will forget that fact, and go along with his proud bellowing about how this man's life was in danger from two unarmed burglars sneaking around.
Now, before I'm accused of being pro-burglar, I'm not. He certainly had a right to be alarmed, as we all would be. But did that give him the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner? What if it had been two kids playing a prank? He was apparently a good shot. Couldn't he have just fired off a warning shot to scare them away, or lock himself in a room and call 911? Even if he was justified in shooting at them, the way the article immediately jumps from saying the burglars were unarmed to saying he had a right to shoot them because his life was in danger, weakens the whole pro-gun case.

​
Click to expand...

Lock myself into a room and call 911? -- they'd have done whatever they wanted and been gone long before police arrived -- it's not instant, you know.

IMHO, and in my state, the homeowner DOES have the right to shoot an intruder into his home. And I do not believe that homeowner had an "itchy finger;" he was rightfully protecting himself.

And just how does saying the homeowner had a right to shoot them because his life was in danger "weaken the whole pro-gun case?"
 
So "early in the article" it said the burglars were unarmed, but did the homeowner KNOW that??
Click to expand...

So, C'est Moi and Butterfly, what if you are walking down the street with your gun in a handy holster, and somebody is walking toward you, looking like a sleazy, suspicious character. He makes eye contact with you. How do you know he is not armed?

Bang!!!
 
Sunny said:
So, C'est Moi and Butterfly, what if you are walking down the street with your gun in a handy holster, and somebody is walking toward you, looking like a sleazy, suspicious character. He makes eye contact with you. How do you know he is not armed?

Bang!!!
Click to expand...

Someone that is walking down the street and you "think" they look suspicious, is not the same as someone that has invaded your home by forced entry. Travon Martin being a prime example. As far as I am concerned in that case George Zimmerman was a murderer. However if Travon Martin had broken into Zimmerman's house Zimmerman would have had every right to kill him IMO.

I hope that helps you understand where I draw my lines.
 
Trade said:
Someone that is walking down the street and you "think" they look suspicious, is not the same as someone that has invaded your home by forced entry. Travon Martin being a prime example. As far as I am concerned in that case George Zimmerman was a murderer. However if Travon Martin had broken into Zimmerman's house Zimmerman would have had every right to kill him IMO.

I hope that helps you understand where I draw my lines.
Click to expand...

I agree.

We all have a basic right to be safe and secure in our own homes and to protect ourselves from anyone that violates that right.
 
I guess I've been lucky in that I have never had anyone break into my house. I've had stuff taken out of my driveway, and my carport and a utility shed. The utility shed burglary consisted of the taking of several fishing outfits. I chalked that one up to Karma resulting from the bait shack burglary that I participated in with some of my friends back in the day. Details can be found under my thread "Trades boring stories" in the diary forum.

One night about 10 years ago while I was up late watching TV there came a knock at my front door around midnight. My first thought was to grab my house gun which at that time was a Model 1911 .45 caliber automatic. But then I thought, nah, you're just being paranoid. So I just looked through the little peephole, saw that it was two women and opened it. They said they had been visiting down the street and left their lights on and now their battery was dead and did I have any jumper cables they could borrow? So I said sure and got in my car drove down to where their's was parked, helped them jump start it and that was the end of it.

Looking back on it, I was stupid. I should have gone to the door armed with my .45. So what if it freaked them out when I answered the door like that? When someone knocks on your door at midnight that's a reasonable response. And seeing through the peephole that it was two women didn't mean much. They could have had a couple of dudes waiting just out of sight to jump me when I opened it. So if that ever happens again I will get my gun first, then go to the door.

Mistake number two was going out to where their car was without my gun. Again, this could have been a set-up. If it ever happens again I will have my gun with me.
 
Sunny said:
Trade, you should have shot and killed them the moment you laid eyes upon them.
Click to expand...

I probably shouldn't laugh about a subject like this but you are funny!




:lofl:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top