Wow yeah I heard about this, I mean I believe that people should be allowed to own guns and to be able to use them WHEN NEEDED. Not when some teens are vandalizing your car... Just messed up

Are you **** kidding me $1million Dollar Bond? So Zimmerman was set free after striking down a teen too. **** this World!

Kia wrote

Lavish wrote

Kia wrote I think people should have guns to protect their homes, but should only be allowed to use them to defend themselves when someone has either entered their home, or the homeowner knows the person outside has a weapon.
If you see some kids vandalizing a car, that really isn't a good enough excuse to go out and start shooting at them.

Yes they should.
Castle Doctrine states you have the right to defend your your life/family and property with lethal force.

The law should be guidelines, not strict, follow to the letter every time without a thought for the circumstances.
The guy should have thought, "Do they really deserve to die for this?" before he went out and started shooting.
Whether he had the legal right to or not.

but how do you know that they weren't carrying a gun they could have easily waited for the shooter to come out and shoot him sorry to say but that's my opinion.

Then he should have stayed in the house and called the police.
Acting on bad information and speculation leads to people getting killed for no reason.

ok then if that's the case then they should have not vadilized the car, the man could have felt his family was in danger.

F-117 wrote

Kia wrote

Lavish wrote

Kia wrote I think people should have guns to protect their homes, but should only be allowed to use them to defend themselves when someone has either entered their home, or the homeowner knows the person outside has a weapon.
If you see some kids vandalizing a car, that really isn't a good enough excuse to go out and start shooting at them.

Yes they should.
Castle Doctrine states you have the right to defend your your life/family and property with lethal force.

The law should be guidelines, not strict, follow to the letter every time without a thought for the circumstances.
The guy should have thought, "Do they really deserve to die for this?" before he went out and started shooting.
Whether he had the legal right to or not.

but how do you know that they weren't carrying a gun they could have easily waited for the shooter to come out and shoot him sorry to say but that's my opinion.

Then he should have stayed in the house and called the police.
Acting on bad information and speculation leads to people getting killed for no reason.

ok then if that's the case then they should have not vadilized the car, the man could have felt his family was in danger.

What person with a brain see's someone outside vandalizing a car, not seeing that they have any intent to enter the home or hurt anyone, instead of calling the police goes out and start shooting?
Sure he might have been within his rights, but some actions really are indefensible when it comes to plain stupidity.

Kia wrote

F-117 wrote

Kia wrote

Lavish wrote

Kia wrote I think people should have guns to protect their homes, but should only be allowed to use them to defend themselves when someone has either entered their home, or the homeowner knows the person outside has a weapon.
If you see some kids vandalizing a car, that really isn't a good enough excuse to go out and start shooting at them.

Yes they should.
Castle Doctrine states you have the right to defend your your life/family and property with lethal force.

The law should be guidelines, not strict, follow to the letter every time without a thought for the circumstances.
The guy should have thought, "Do they really deserve to die for this?" before he went out and started shooting.
Whether he had the legal right to or not.

but how do you know that they weren't carrying a gun they could have easily waited for the shooter to come out and shoot him sorry to say but that's my opinion.

Then he should have stayed in the house and called the police.
Acting on bad information and speculation leads to people getting killed for no reason.

ok then if that's the case then they should have not vadilized the car, the man could have felt his family was in danger.

What person with a brain see's someone outside vandalizing a car, not seeing that they have any intent to enter the home or hurt anyone, instead of calling the police goes out and start shooting?
Sure he might have been within his rights, but some actions really are indefensible when it comes to plain stupidity.

if that's the case then I think the teens should be charged with vadilizam.

F-117 wrote

Kia wrote

F-117 wrote

Kia wrote

Lavish wrote

Kia wrote I think people should have guns to protect their homes, but should only be allowed to use them to defend themselves when someone has either entered their home, or the homeowner knows the person outside has a weapon.
If you see some kids vandalizing a car, that really isn't a good enough excuse to go out and start shooting at them.

Yes they should.
Castle Doctrine states you have the right to defend your your life/family and property with lethal force.

The law should be guidelines, not strict, follow to the letter every time without a thought for the circumstances.
The guy should have thought, "Do they really deserve to die for this?" before he went out and started shooting.
Whether he had the legal right to or not.

but how do you know that they weren't carrying a gun they could have easily waited for the shooter to come out and shoot him sorry to say but that's my opinion.

Then he should have stayed in the house and called the police.
Acting on bad information and speculation leads to people getting killed for no reason.

ok then if that's the case then they should have not vadilized the car, the man could have felt his family was in danger.

What person with a brain see's someone outside vandalizing a car, not seeing that they have any intent to enter the home or hurt anyone, instead of calling the police goes out and start shooting?
Sure he might have been within his rights, but some actions really are indefensible when it comes to plain stupidity.

if that's the case then I think the teens should be charged with vadilizam.

I agree with you 100%.
But I find it horrible that the man is probably going to get let off because of a broad and easily abusable law.

Kia wrote

F-117 wrote

Kia wrote

F-117 wrote

Kia wrote

Lavish wrote

Kia wrote I think people should have guns to protect their homes, but should only be allowed to use them to defend themselves when someone has either entered their home, or the homeowner knows the person outside has a weapon.
If you see some kids vandalizing a car, that really isn't a good enough excuse to go out and start shooting at them.

Yes they should.
Castle Doctrine states you have the right to defend your your life/family and property with lethal force.

The law should be guidelines, not strict, follow to the letter every time without a thought for the circumstances.
The guy should have thought, "Do they really deserve to die for this?" before he went out and started shooting.
Whether he had the legal right to or not.

but how do you know that they weren't carrying a gun they could have easily waited for the shooter to come out and shoot him sorry to say but that's my opinion.

Then he should have stayed in the house and called the police.
Acting on bad information and speculation leads to people getting killed for no reason.

ok then if that's the case then they should have not vadilized the car, the man could have felt his family was in danger.

What person with a brain see's someone outside vandalizing a car, not seeing that they have any intent to enter the home or hurt anyone, instead of calling the police goes out and start shooting?
Sure he might have been within his rights, but some actions really are indefensible when it comes to plain stupidity.

if that's the case then I think the teens should be charged with vadilizam.

I agree with you 100%.
But I find it horrible that the man is probably going to get let off because of a broad and easily abusable law.

the teens are going to get away with it, and I don't agree but I agree with the shooters reason why he open fire. But all the information is from the teens not the shooters. The teens could be lying about the situation the could have threaten his family and thanks. I respect your opinion tho

No sense in this. Should have just called the cops. At most, scare them by showing you have a gun. Firing on people that aren't actually hurting or endangering anyone is atrocious. Not a fan of pranks, but this did not need to end in someone being killed.

Kia wrote I think people should have guns to protect their homes, but should only be allowed to use them to defend themselves when someone has either entered their home, or the homeowner knows the person outside has a weapon.
If you see some kids vandalizing a car, that really isn't a good enough excuse to go out and start shooting at them.

So you're saying us gun owners shouldn't be aloud to hunt and have target practice?

really messed up stuff happening and again another gun involved