I'm speechless (not really) looking at the extent of shit contained in your post suppup, and even more by how you managed to reply things that had nothing to do with what I said. I thought I was speaking simple English here but apparently it wasn't enough for you to understand.
So I'm gonna go over all the things you wrote and express myself very clearly so you can get it. And there's nothing wrong in reading the same sentence twice when you don't understand.
Because everyone thats ever killed anyone has always told the person they were going to kill them. No one has ever killed anyone without giving them a heads up. ... You... must.... be... kidding... oh and now we are adding words into the intruders mouth?
What I used there that you call "adding words into the intruder's mouth" is named an EXAMPLE.
Click here for the Merriam-Webster's definition of the word example.
My goal was to show, by an exaggerated example of what an intruder could say, that you could, that is if you have the required intellect, tell that someone calling you "Dad?" might not be as dangerous as someone having other potential reactions you'd expect from an intruder, and that reconsidering shooting him is a possibility that should have been considered in this situation.
Again, stupid as fuck. When you hide you are giving the intruder a chance to act first. ITS YOUR FUCKING HOUSE. He is NOT supposed to be there. HE WAS NOT COOPERATING. He continued to advance after being warned. A intruders life is worth FAR less than putting you and your family at ANY potential risk. Why do you think people get shot by police officers every day when they make a fast move when the officer warns them to keep their hands up? Because its not worth taking the chance. I'm not gonna put my family in a closet and give them a chance to be found when I can end the situation at the window. It may be more dangerous but i'd rather die trying than lose the advantage of the high ground and be caught cowering in a closet like a pussy.
Firstly, saying that what I'm saying is stupid does not make you look any more intelligent. If your goal is to appear so, you should try writing a clever post instead. Good luck.
Secondly, I never ever said something about hiding
in the closet. Yet all you have understood and said in your last two posts is that this is what I meant by hiding. That's wrong. I was rather referring to locking yourself up in a room or simply going elsewhere than where you must confront the intruder. I thought you would understand that. I was wrong.
Thirdly, I disagree that hiding gives the intruder the advantage. It is the opposite. Think about it: he doesn't know where you are. If you know how to hide, you can even see him before he sees you! How great!
Lastly, "cowering in a closet like a pussy". Well I believe there's nothing wrong in hiding. But I suppose you would rather risk killing/dying so no one will call you a pussy, as everyone does when someone hides. So show the intruder you're the boss, hero. I just hope you're a better shooter, or instead of being called a pussy you will be dead.
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PERSON THAT WANTS TO BREAK IN WANTS? HES BREAKING IN. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. HES NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. HES MAKING AGGRESSIVE ACTION AND BREAKING INTO YOUR HOME. OHHHHH HE MUSTTTTT BE LOST. JUST LIKE EVERYONE WHO BREAKS IN.
Wowowow, calm down little fella. You know, I should be the one mad here, because all this part you wrote in capital letters isn't worth shit, since you didn't even consider the part I wrote RIGHT AFTER the paragraph you were referring to.
Look, I'll quote myself:
That is untrue. Quite the opposite: I value my life enough to not try and play the big hero, and hide instead of getting into a shootout, at the risk of looking like a pussy in the eyes of big heroes like many people in this thread seem to think they are. There are 2 options: either the person breaking into your house wants to kill/rape/hurt you, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, why would you kill him? And if he does, chances are he shoots better than you, so hide.
BTW I'm not saying you should magically know which one is which, just that you are better hiding, and that shooting someone should be used in last resort.
The key here is the part in bold. I just said, right after the paragraph you answered to in all beautiful capital letters, that I was not intending anyone to magically know what the intruder wants. "BTW I'm not saying you should magically know which one is which" is exactly what I said.
Still, you find the mean to ask this: "HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PERSON THAT WANTS TO BREAK IN WANTS?"
As I said to someone else in my last post: fucking read what I write before answering crap.
Absolutely wrong. Hiding is the dumbest thing anyone could do. Even more so if they catch the person coming in the window and have a gun in hand.
See I disagree. But I have no statistic to prove my point. Do you?
I wonder though: how many people get killed when successfully hiding (that is, no one finds them) VS. how many people get killed while confronting the intruder?
Oh i forgot. The homeowner was supposed to know this person was confused and on mushrooms. Isn't he aware of the fact that its always like that? 99.99 % of people who break in are confused and on mushrooms. Stupid homeowner. Take your head out of your ass and use it for a second.
Hahahaha! I find it fun that you tell me to take my head out of my ass and use it, right after you post an entire paragraph about something I never said (that is, the homeowner was supposed to know the intruder was on mushrooms) and manage to answer something which had absolutely nothing to do with what I really did say. Reread my post.
He did everything in his legal right to defend his home and loved ones.
Fuck. I don't understand how any of you are having such a hard time understanding this shit.
So that is your answer to this question: in what way did he defended the life of his precious wife when he shot that 18 years old?
See, I'm a little saddened here because I was hoping you would come to the conclusion that killing the intruder didn't do shit to protect his wife's life, since she never was in danger.
--------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I'm going to stop posting in this thread now, because this has already started to repeat itself and will continue over and over again following this course of actions:
drug_mentor will discuss in a correct way and make his points, which are the opposite of mine, and we will keep disagreeing until Armageddon;
then, suppup will come and say that what I'm saying is stupid in a lame and unsuccessful attempt to prove he's clever, before answering things that have nothing to do with my posts;
right after, Selfmeditaker will come say he agrees, then talk about the size of his guns, adding nothing useful to the conversation;
and finally, some random dude who has nothing to do with this conversation will clearly state how he would kill anyone breaking in his house.
This is getting boring. Feel free to answer this post though, I'll come and read what you wrote.
I'll state my point one very last time: I believe there are other, better ways to deal with someone breaking into your house SUCH AS, for EXAMPLE, hiding (it doesn't have to be in the closet suppup, though it seems you like that place), going out, using non-lethal weapons, etc. AND that people should use lethal force when there is no other options, rather than shooting first, asking questions latter. This should avoid the death of small time thieves and confused harmless people, and those of course of unlucky homeowners who fought the wrong guy. Once again, there is nothing wrong in shooting an armed person, or what one believes to be an armed person, when there is no other options.
But have it your way people. Shoot first. Confront the intruder and show him who's the boss of the castle. Show him your big, hard gun and penetrate him with all the force of your bullets. You'll feel like a real man when he dies, that is unless he kills you first. Or unless he is a confused kid in the wrong house.