Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Neighbors say they're "outraged" that an 80-year-old owner of a local tavern has been charged with shooting a burglar who broke into his home in the Englewood neighborhood on the South Side.
“What does it say to me and other senior citizens that we will be arrested if we defend ourselves?" asked Anita Dominique, head of the block club in the neighborhood. "This is an outrage.”
This is just another example of the city elite trying to disarm the people that live in less prosperous neighborhoods. IMHO everyone should have a firearm at home or be carrying one. The police are useless when an assault is occurring. The potential victim has to stop the assault then call the cops.
The most severe charge this man should face is "Attempted pest control". Actually he should not be charged with anything and his firearm returned. He stopped the home invasion and the assault without killing the assailant. He should get a commendation from the police not an arrest.
I hope this isn't supposed to be a comparison to the Trayvon Martin shooting because if so you are comparing apples and cannonballs.
That being said yes he should be allowed to shoot an intruder IN HIS HOME.
I think this is more about why we need SYG laws, and less about a comparison. The issue is that good people defend themselves every day, yet we never hear about "the guy who saved people by shooting the bad guy" from the mainscream press. The minute there's a questionable shooting, especially if it has a racial spin, the mainscream are all over it. Their biased spin is really pathetic.
All upstanding citizens should own a gun, except the ones who are against them. One day a baddy will try to do harm to them and a gun toting good guy will hopefully be around to save them, unless they got their way and guns were banned. If that's the case, sucks to hate guns.
Why should there be "stand your ground" laws as long as self-defense is an available legal defense? Where is a resident supposed to retreat to if they are in their own home and someone invades that home with criminal intent? I agree with Castle Doctrine, but I think Stand Your Ground inappropriately extends the concept of self-defense by allowing a lethal force response in more circumstances and ignoring retreat and escape as part of a valid self-defense. If your physical safety can be achieved by removing yourself from the scene, I don't see lethal force as a valid alternative. But in one's one abode, it's a different situation. An intruder enters at their own peril.
I love how the right always blames the media for false reporting and then they do the exact same. The story says he had 2 prior gun convictions. This probably meant he was not LAWFULLY allowed to possess a firearm. Hence the arrest for UNLAWFUL USE OF A FIREARM.
LIke I said, "ATEMPTED PEST CONTROL WITHOUT A LICENSE".
I believe previous firearms convictions under a systen as draconic as Chicago's should be rendered void. This citizen needed a weapon handy and the city had no right to deprive him of his safety in his own home. Or anywhere else for that matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
