Originally Posted by Rochard

No, the homeowner could have fired a few warning shots. Instead of being judge, jury, and executioner and killing a man for breaking in and entering, why couldn't the homeowner have fired off a few warning shots. Instead of killing a man, fire off a shot or two that screams "I have a firearm, I am prepared to use it, and if you continue I will shoot and kill you".

I have firearms. In the event I find myself defending myself with my firearms when some one breaks in, I will fire a warning shot before I shoot and kill someone. Just fucking common sense - I don't spend the next two years and tens of thousands of dollars defending myself in court because the criminal's mother filed a wrong death civil lawsuit.



You won't fire warning shots where you can aim away from anyone in your family, but you have no issues getting into a gun battle with unknown amount of intruders while your family is potentially in the crossfire.

You wouldn't be giving the criminal time to take your weapon. The guy who broke into your house isn't about to go charging into a room where you have a gun when he knows you are locked and loaded and not afraid to fire.



So you are saying that police need to have a positive identification when they open fire on someone? Again... Cops thought they had pulled over the suspect, cops responded to a report of shots fired, and then cops thought they were intentionally rammed and under attack... Of course they opened fire; In their eyes shots were already fired and they were defending themselves. What did you expect them to do - Hand out flowers? Wait for back up? They were the back up....