Getaway driver arrested for murder.

Vixen said:
Zach Peters himself says he grabbed his AR-15 came down the stairs and fired at them.
Click to expand...

And how do you logicaly make that into ...

"firing an automatic firearm towards an enemy in long bursts, without making an effort to line up each shot or burst of shots"

(That's what "spraying bullets" means BTW.)
 
Yeggster said:
And how do you logicaly make that into ...

"firing an automatic firearm towards an enemy in long bursts, without making an effort to line up each shot or burst of shots"

(That's what "spraying bullets" means BTW.)
Click to expand...

He did shoot randomly. Hit one in the upper body - had no idea what happened to the others - thought one was still talking and that he'd only shot two. One managed to crawl out to the lawn, whereupon the getaway driver drove off and left him to die.

It will be interesting to discover if he really did 'only fire two bullets'.

Zach seems like a nice, well-educated guy, but if he did fire at them 'to teach them a lesson', then he should be charged IMV.
 
Argumemnon said:
And how was the owner to know they were harmless?

What's your brilliant solution?
Click to expand...


While sleeping at home, without an AK assault rifle that sprays bullets anywhere in sight, she is awoken by the sound of possible intruders breaking into her/his home. She follows the sounds and finds 3 masked strangers armed with a knife and brass knuckles. At this point, she realizes these must be 3 disadvantaged teenagers who entered the wrong house by accident or maybe were going door to door trying to sell their weapons. She then offers the children something cold to drink and if they would like to make themselves more comfortable.

When the kids explain they are there to rape and pillage her, then rob her blind, she asks if they would be so kind as to use condoms, and volunteers the location of her most valuables. When the poor lads finish their business, she promises not to call the authorities, and whips up some sandwiches and cookies to go. She also hands them some Rape/Burglary Anon pamphlets.

Now all is well in pink unicorn land.
 
Vixen said:
He did shoot randomly. Hit one in the upper body - had no idea what happened to the others - thought one was still talking and that he'd only shot two. One managed to crawl out to the lawn, whereupon the getaway driver drove off and left him to die.

It will be interesting to discover if he really did 'only fire two bullets'.

Zach seems like a nice, well-educated guy, but if he did fire at them 'to teach them a lesson', then he should be charged IMV.
Click to expand...

Shooting very sparingly AND making the shots hit the intended targets ... is by definition the exact opposite of "spraying" ... and the exact opposite of "shooting randomly"

I also find it interesting you seem to know what he was thinking at that time.
 
3point14 said:
I'm with you, but the law in the US seems to work differently and a fleeing criminal can be shot in the back with immunity, if I recall correctly. i think there's case law that tallies with this (I may be wrong, I often am).

I'm wondering - not of you, but of anyone that knows about this stuff - what the law is in this instance.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/
(ADA)Thorp told reporters that investigators will help his office determine whether Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground" law applies in the case of the triple shooting.

The law says: "A person or a owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another."
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
He did shoot randomly. Hit one in the upper body - had no idea what happened to the others - thought one was still talking and that he'd only shot two. One managed to crawl out to the lawn, whereupon the getaway driver drove off and left him to die.

It will be interesting to discover if he really did 'only fire two bullets'.

Zach seems like a nice, well-educated guy, but if he did fire at them 'to teach them a lesson', then he should be charged IMV.
Click to expand...

He will not be charged because the DA knows no jury on earth will convict him.
I love the way you seem to want to blame the victim rather then the criminals.
 
Jules Galen said:
I still maintain that there is a lot to this story that we haven't been told.

Most "Home Invasions" of this type are done by people who know each other and have got a grudge - there's always a back story that leads to the "Invasion". Any time I hear of this type of home invasion, I do not think in terms of "perpetrators" and "victims" since both parties seem equally responsible for the carnage.

A lot of journos would lead you to believe that this type of Home Invasion could happen to anyone. No....it doesn't. As long as you are not dealing drugs and stealing from people, you never have to fear this type of Home Invasion happening to you .
Click to expand...

Complete 100% hogwash.

Does this 79 year-old man look like a drug dealer to you? His house has been broken into 13 times since June and he finally shot the violent criminal, and took a bullet himself.

Alabama man kills home invader: 'I hate that boy dead, but I don't hate I shot him'
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/3...ate-that-boy-dead-but-dont-hate-shot-him.html

Jefferson County deputies say there were two men inside. Another, driving the getaway car, waited outside.
Click to expand...

Sound familiar?

“I have three bedrooms. I think they checked the other two bedrooms out and then he came over there and said, 'Don't move!' He heard the bed squeak. I was getting my gun. He said, 'Don't move' and he used the ‘N’ word and I shot,” Croft recounted later Wednesday.


“I hate that boy dead, but I don't hate I shot him,”


Croft says he didn't know it at the time, but the suspect had shot him too, hitting him in the ankle.
Click to expand...

Only drug dealers are victims of home invasions - got it.
 
3point14 said:
I've always wondered when that stops. At what point, if any, can the prospective criminal once more defend themselves legitimately?
Click to expand...
I suppose it would be when they no longer pose a threat to their erstwhile victim. With the case in question, I'd *guess* it would be as soon as their back was turned, had surrendered, were incapacitated or were running away. It's not easy to see, however, how they would be able to "fight back" in any of those postures.

Also, the law requires that the victim cease fire as soon as the perp is no longer a threat. Assuming the victim does cease fire, the Perp would have no need to "defend" himself.

It's possible to tailor this to make any kind of case you wish to make, to reinforce whatever agenda you may have. Restricting the conversation to the known facts, however, the victim remains the victim and has the right of self defense, to include the use of deadly force, and the perps remain the perps, and anything that happens to them was set in motion through their own actions.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
mgidm86 said:
Complete 100% hogwash.

Does this 79 year-old man look like a drug dealer to you? His house has been broken into 13 times since June and he finally shot the violent criminal, and took a bullet himself.
Alabama man kills home invader: 'I hate that boy dead, but I don't hate I shot him'
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/3...ate-that-boy-dead-but-dont-hate-shot-him.html



Sound familiar?



Only drug dealers are victims of home invasions - got it.
Click to expand...

Guy sounds like an idiot and a drug dealer. I wonder how much dope those stole off of him before he decided to waste them.
 
dudalb said:
He will not be charged because the DA knows no jury on earth will convict him.
I love the way you seem to want to blame the victim rather then the criminals.
Click to expand...

hey...this may be a drug deal gone bad. It usually is.
 
Beady said:
....... Also, the law requires that the victim cease fire as soon as the perp is no longer a threat .......
Click to expand...

This is just not true ... laws are different in different areas ...

In some areas you can shoot unarmed strangers in broad daylight who came to you door by accident unannounced.

And shoot people who stole from your neighbour as they are running away.
 
Brainster said:
That is what you say to customers who walk into your store during normal business hours. It is not what you say to burglars.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know. That seems as good a starting point for the conversation as any.
 
Jules Galen said:
Guy sounds like an idiot and a drug dealer. I wonder how much dope those stole off of him before he decided to waste them.
Click to expand...


Translation:
Yes, I was wrong. Not all people who suffer home invasions are drug dealers.

Thank you for agreeing.
 
Wow. As someone who hates guns and has often found fault with "stand your ground" nonsense, I can't believe anyone could argue that it's in any way wrong to shoot 3 people who have invaded your home. Unless they break in while you're right next to a door that is 15 feet or less away from a police station, getting your gun and taking your shot(s) is a very reasonable course of action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom