PDA

View Full Version : Swift Justice


OldCessna
29th Mar 2018, 19:30
Police: Convicted felon shot, killed by homeowner during Hermitage home invasion

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WZTV) —

Metro Police have identified the alleged robber shot by a homeowner during a home invasion in Hermitage on Wednesday night.

Terry Adams, Jr., 27, of Ashland City, Tenn. died overnight. Adams is a convicted felon out of Cheatham County and Nashville.

Police say the 43-year-old homeowner was away from his Richard Lee Circle residence when two "strange men" entered through a back door and struck his wife. The homeowner arrived to find the back door open and walked into the kitchen where he was struck on the head with a "blunt object," causing a skull fracture.

The man was ordered to open his gun safe and the robbers took three long guns and a pistol. During this time, the wife fled to a neighbors house and the two suspects left with the guns.

Police said the homeowner, unsure of where his wife went, got a pistol out of another room and headed outside where he again met the robbers. During an altercation, police said the homeowner fired at the suspects, fatally striking Adams.

The second robber dropped the guns and fled. He remains on the run.

The homeowner is currently being treated in the hospital.

Police said the same Hermitage home was burglarized on Feb, 6 and a flat screen TV was taken. Adams is a suspect in that case.

Adams has been convicted of attempted burglary in Nashville and has several convictions ranging from car theft, to felony theft to aggravated assault in Cheatham County. He also plead guilty last November to two misdemeanors stemming from a felony meth possession for resale and gun charges.

At the time of Wednesday's home invasion, Adams was wanted on two probation violations.

funfly
29th Mar 2018, 22:12
So the penalty for burglary is death then? And that's Justice?

A burglar in a gun toting country might well be aware that he stands a good chance of getting shot, even killed, but that's not justice and thinking it is marks the difference between a civilised society and an uncivilised one.

Gertrude the Wombat
29th Mar 2018, 22:21
So the penalty for burglary is death then? And that's Justice?
Depends, in my view, on the details of the "altercation" outside the house. If the perp was shot whilst running away that's murder, if the perp was shot whilst continuing to attack the householder that's self defence.

vapilot2004
29th Mar 2018, 22:32
In the states, it's known as "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws. Castle doctrine affords a home, apartment, or trailer dweller the right to use deadly force in stopping an interloper, with no requirement for retreat, while stand your ground laws give the same right to gun owners who feel "threatened" in public spaces. Proof of the interloper causing a life threatening situation is optional, as Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager armed only with a carton of chocolate milk (and black skin) would tell you, were he alive today.

There are a total of 24 states with such laws on their books, including Tennessee. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana ,Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia.

It may be interesting to note that all of those states with the exception of New Hampshire, are red states, and as such voted for Trump in the 2016 election. Nearly all of Dixieland, aka the southern states, where slavery once ruled in the 19th century and racism is alive and well in the 21st century, have this law. These laws give "law abiding" gun owners the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

glad rag
29th Mar 2018, 22:38
So the penalty for burglary is death then? And that's Justice?

A burglar in a gun toting country might well be aware that he stands a good chance of getting shot, even killed, but that's not justice and thinking it is marks the difference between a civilised society and an uncivilised one.

So you condone fracturing someone's skull in their own home? Sounds like attempted murder actually.
Still he won't be doing that, or anyone else, again for that matter.

racedo
29th Mar 2018, 22:51
So the penalty for burglary is death then? And that's Justice?

A burglar in a gun toting country might well be aware that he stands a good chance of getting shot, even killed, but that's not justice and thinking it is marks the difference between a civilised society and an uncivilised one.

Property done 2 months ago, they came back to do it again, attacked wife inside, wife ran when husband came in and he being attacked to get help, he beaten and they rob gun safe so they are already armed, he unsure whether she been held hostage after he was physically beaten, got gun and went to find her. Found them and knew they were already armed plus willing to offer violence straight away. Acted.

If I was on a jury I would suggest we wait for 15 minutes before returning but would not be convicting him.

Katamarino
30th Mar 2018, 08:49
So the penalty for burglary is death then? And that's Justice?

A burglar in a gun toting country might well be aware that he stands a good chance of getting shot, even killed, but that's not justice and thinking it is marks the difference between a civilised society and an uncivilised one.

Boo hoo hoo. Good riddance to the scumbag.

There's 7 billion people on this planet, killing off the ones like this is not going to do us any harm.

vctenderness
30th Mar 2018, 09:35
......I’ll second that!

Loggerheads
30th Mar 2018, 10:39
So the penalty for burglary is death then? And that's Justice?
What would you suggest would have served as justice for this scrote, funfly?

treadigraph
30th Mar 2018, 10:43
The man was ordered to open his gun safe and the robbers took three long guns and a pistol. During this time, the wife fled to a neighbors house and the two suspects left with the guns.

I wonder what the suspects might have been going to do with those guns they stole...

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Mar 2018, 10:49
I wonder what the suspects might have been going to do with those guns they stole...
There's not a lot of point in having a gun "safe" if guns can still be stolen from it, is there. Might as well keep them lying around on the kitchen table.

treadigraph
30th Mar 2018, 10:52
Read the paragraph I quoted...

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Mar 2018, 10:56
I did.
the robbers took three long guns and a pistol
QED.

treadigraph
30th Mar 2018, 11:00
The man was ordered to open his gun safe

You clearly missed a bit...

Sallyann1234
30th Mar 2018, 11:05
It wasn't 'safe' then was it?

charliegolf
30th Mar 2018, 11:13
ROMF. Rule of minimum force. Someone has my wife (maybe), has shown the willingness to use violence (fractured my skull) and has my guns. The minimum force to render me and my wife safe is to kill the intruder. My main regret would have been buying a white carpet.

CG

Loggerheads
30th Mar 2018, 11:19
My main regret would have been buying a white carpet.
Nah, easily replaced. Letting the other scrote get away to continue his life of crime would be mine.
I can't be doing with those who in their definition of being civilised are happy to see others suffer.:ugh:

ShyTorque
30th Mar 2018, 11:40
So we must protect these poor criminals? Society is to blame; it's the fault of innocent householders? :mad:

I hope he didn't waste too many rounds....

Clop_Clop
30th Mar 2018, 11:48
Another point if the robbers were a threat to the homeowner when he fired, if he is shot in the back for example while running away. Could be threatening and then different story fearing for own safety etc. But don't see that the homeowner should have a carte blanche regardless of previous robbery... Still robbers very much outside the envelope and should know that people have weapons and can defend themselves...

One issue with guns where i believe the training is mostly on the range but do most people know when they can use them as well and know the law etc. In a no gun scenario could instead be a burglary with victims attacked badly before they had to call the police that would deal with the robbers one way or the other and courts hand out the sentence later on... At least the expertise needed to be called for to tackle would be professional but same time as the chap in the middle trying to defend yourself in this realtime you are less able to. Hard to be absolutely convinced one way or the other what's best...

funfly
30th Mar 2018, 11:55
I would refer you to the thread title where the poster is suggesting that this is ‘Justice’. OK a robber might be killed in a confrontation but Justice is a concept where anyone recieves due punishment for a crime given by the legal system based on the laws of the land rather than some lynch mob.

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Mar 2018, 12:55
It wasn't 'safe' then was it?
Exactly...

racedo
30th Mar 2018, 13:03
Another point if the robbers were a threat to the homeowner when he fired, if he is shot in the back for example while running away. Could be threatening and then different story fearing for own safety etc. But don't see that the homeowner should have a carte blanche regardless of previous robbery... Still robbers very much outside the envelope and should know that people have weapons and can defend themselves...

.

They have already used violence, they have stolen guns, they STILL outside property..................... wonder how many other innocent people were saved by stopping him.

uffington sb
30th Mar 2018, 13:22
If only there was some swift ‘justice’ for these two scumbags.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5912991/killer-duo-guilty-of-raping-and-murdering-young-mum-before-eating-a-curry-as-her-body-lay-on-the-floor/

Clop_Clop
30th Mar 2018, 13:42
Yeah but still bit steep shooting to kill later on unless threatened him or wife or someone else again. Maybe not possible in this case but better if police could arrive and let them deal with it and homeowner manage to stay clear while they arrive.

Crownstay01
30th Mar 2018, 14:41
I would refer you to the thread title where the poster is suggesting that this is ‘Justice’. OK a robber might be killed in a confrontation but Justice is a concept where anyone recieves due punishment for a crime given by the legal system...

If the information in the article about the burglar's previous convictions is correct, his encounters with the legal system and subsequent punishment had no deterrent value whatsoever. I have no sympathy for him at all.

funfly
30th Mar 2018, 14:45
Police said the homeowner, unsure of where his wife went, got a pistol out of another room and headed outside where he again met the robbers. During an altercation, police said the homeowner fired at the suspects, fatally striking Adams.

The report does not claim that the man shot the robber as some sort of Justice, He shot him as part of a struggle, good luck to him.

The thing that gets me going is the Lynch Mob on here claiming that shooting anyone with the intention to kill them as 'Justice' for their crime. In civilised society (that some of you even call 'fluffy liberal') there is an established legal system to decide the fate of criminals, whether you agree with their decisions, whether you think all criminals are 'scum' and worthy of being shot, is beside the point.

fleigle
30th Mar 2018, 15:56
"The man was ordered to open his gun safe..."
Insert any other word instead of "gun", a safe is a safe, unless unlocked by the person who has the key, or the combination.
Every "safe" that I have seen is a very substantial, heavy object.
If my wife had been attacked, me bludgeoned and then threatened with a gun, and I had a chance to retaliate then I would do what that bloke did too.
And I am a left-leaning resident of California.
Some of you people must live a very sheltered life in your ivory towers.
f

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Mar 2018, 16:17
"The man was ordered to open his gun safe..."
Insert any other word instead of "gun", a safe is a safe, unless unlocked by the person who has the key, or the combination.
Every "safe" that I have seen is a very substantial, heavy object.
If my wife had been attacked, me bludgeoned and then threatened with a gun, and I had a chance to retaliate then I would do what that bloke did too.
And I am a left-leaning resident of California.
Some of you people must live a very sheltered life in your ivory towers.
f
It doesn't matter what words you use. If the purpose of the "gun" "safe" was to keep the "guns" "safe" so that they couldn't be stolen, it failed. End of. This is a very simple "You Had One Job" story.

Smeagol
30th Mar 2018, 16:50
It doesn't matter what words you use. If the purpose of the "gun" "safe" was to keep the "guns" "safe" so that they couldn't be stolen, it failed. End of. This is a very simple "You Had One Job" story.

What exactly is your point?

It would seem that your logic would mean that there is no point in storing anything, jewellery, money, other valuables, etc. in any locked container as it can obviously be unlocked with suitable intimidation. This must also applies to banks, depositories and any other similar allegedly secure place.

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Mar 2018, 17:14
What exactly is your point?

It would seem that your logic would mean that there is no point in storing anything, jewellery, money, other valuables, etc. in any locked container as it can obviously be unlocked with suitable intimidation. This must also applies to banks, depositories and any other similar allegedly secure place.
Nope. Keeping valuables safe is not usually legally mandated for the safety of other people - if my cash gets nicked that doesn't hurt anyone other than me.

Guns are different - if guns are stolen they can be used by criminals to kill people. This is why in some jurisdictions there is a legal requirement to keep guns safe. I don't know whether this particular incident falls within such a jurisdiction, but whether it did or not, the gun owner did not keep his guns safe, and did allow them to be stolen, causing a risk to other people.

Smeagol
30th Mar 2018, 17:30
So your hidden agenda, Gertrude, is that there is no such thing as a 'gun safe' and by extension there should be no guns.

I am sure that this would be a nice world but just a tad impractical.

Sallyann1234
30th Mar 2018, 17:41
Not necessarily. The 'safe' answer of course would be for guns to be kept not in a residential home but in a secure repository such a gun club or a guarded vault.

Smeagol
30th Mar 2018, 17:46
Not necessarily. The 'safe' answer of course would be for guns to be kept not in a residential home but in a secure repository such a gun club or a guarded vault.

Which could still be opened with intimidation or threats of violence to family members etc.

so it's back to 'there is no such thing as a Safe'.

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Mar 2018, 17:48
So your hidden agenda, Gertrude, is that there is no such thing as a 'gun safe' and by extension there should be no guns.
I make no such judgement, I am not a gun safe engineer. I'm just pointing out that this particular "gun safe" wasn't. One could for example imagine a design where once you've pressed the panic button you can't open the safe without heavy engineering.

The "no guns" approach does actually work by the way - nobody has ever stolen any guns from my house, so I'm doing better than the guy in this incident.

racedo
30th Mar 2018, 17:51
Not necessarily. The 'safe' answer of course would be for guns to be kept not in a residential home but in a secure repository such a gun club or a guarded vault.


Oh yeah so the "state" can look after them for you.................. so when does the state take them from criminals ?

goudie
30th Mar 2018, 17:55
Ammunition must be kept separately, and the guns kept unloaded, I understand. So the guns would surely have been useless as a threat, by the intruders, unless they coerced him in to opening the ammunition safe as well.

Pontius Navigator
30th Mar 2018, 18:10
He did not shoot the burglar running away.

A gun safe keeps guns relatively secure when the owner is not present.

funfly
30th Mar 2018, 18:13
In a situation where everyone is allowed to own a gun (and most do) then it is also understandable that criminals will also feel the need to carry one. I doubt if the red-necks will ever be parted from their penis substitutes and having purchased one and possibly practiced for years, one can understand their enthusiasm of having to use a weapon 'for real'.

G-CPTN
30th Mar 2018, 18:33
Did the robbers only take guns - or was it just part of a general robbery where they took whatever items of value that they could?

If the purpose of the robbery was solely to obtain guns, then I feel that stopping them was important - or are guns so readily available that such activity is insignificant?

Way back when, the IRA gun clubs and cadet premises where they could add to their arsenal by stealing the stored weapons.

G-CPTN
30th Mar 2018, 18:37
In a situation where everyone is allowed to own a gun (and most do) then it is also understandable that criminals will also feel the need to carry one.

If guns are so easy to obtain, why would criminals risk their life stealing them from those who are known to possess weapons that they could use against them (the owners against the robbers)?

Did the robbers only take guns - or was it just part of a general robbery where they took whatever items of value that they could?

If the purpose of the robbery was solely to obtain guns, then I feel that stopping them was important - or are guns so readily available that such activity is insignificant?

Way back when, the IRA gun clubs and cadet premises where they could add to their arsenal by stealing the stored weapons.

goudie
30th Mar 2018, 18:53
In the RAF and the other Services, ‘ armoury guard’ was a pain in the butt, especially when keen young officers thought it fun to try and break in!

charliegolf
30th Mar 2018, 18:55
A gun safe keeps guns relatively secure when the owner is not present.

But when the owner's kids are present!

CG

Sallyann1234
30th Mar 2018, 18:59
Oh yeah so the "state" can look after them for you.................. so when does the state take them from criminals ?
So the "state" runs gun clubs and security vaults.
Well you learn something every day on pprune. :ugh:

Gertrude the Wombat
30th Mar 2018, 19:02
If guns are so easy to obtain, why would criminals risk their life stealing them from those who are known to possess weapons that they could use against them (the owners against the robbers)?
Possibly because criminals aren't very bright? - one lot of burglars who raided our house left $20 bills scattered across the bedroom floor, having apparently failed to recognise that these were money.

Sallyann1234
30th Mar 2018, 19:08
Which could still be opened with intimidation or threats of violence to family members etc
Why would an intruder go to the trouble of holding a family hostage and send someone to a repository to fetch their guns?
Has that ever happened to someone who does keep their guns at the range?

We're talking about guns stolen as part of of a burglary. A very different issue altogether.

G-CPTN
30th Mar 2018, 20:14
one lot of burglars who raided our house left $20 bills scattered across the bedroom floor, having apparently failed to recognise that these were money.

Monopoly money . . .

racedo
31st Mar 2018, 12:32
So the "state" runs gun clubs and security vaults.
Well you learn something every day on pprune. :ugh:

Stage 1 put them in central gun clubs
Stage 2 claim they not under enough control so "state" will look after them for you
Stage 3 state demands to know what you are doing with a gun

Pontius Navigator
31st Mar 2018, 15:27
In the RAF and the other Services, ‘ armoury guard’ was a pain in the butt, especially when keen young officers thought it fun to try and break in!At Lindholme the Security Officer had new course arrivals doing just that. I wore the PA to Stn Cdr's No 1, got a piece of paper simulating a telegram and went to the armoury. I said I had a telegram for a fictitious SAC. The curious guard let me in so he could read the telegram.

I don't know what happened to said guard afterwards.

Sallyann1234
31st Mar 2018, 21:46
Stage 1 put them in central gun clubs
Stage 2 claim they not under enough control so "state" will look after them for you
Stage 3 state demands to know what you are doing with a gun
Well you have a rich imagination, I'll give you that.

Shack37
31st Mar 2018, 22:28
Originally posted by PN

At Lindholme the Security Officer had new course arrivals doing just that. I wore the PA to Stn Cdr's No 1, got a piece of paper simulating a telegram and went to the armoury. I said I had a telegram for a fictitious SAC. The curious guard let me in so he could read the telegram.


One night whilst on guard in Majunga we received a call from one of our aircrew advising that the Duty Officer, obviously bored or with a sick sense of humour, had left a note in one of the Shacks saying "Bomb". Replying in kind we left a note for him saying "Defused" :*

racedo
31st Mar 2018, 23:42
Well you have a rich imagination, I'll give you that.

Show me a country where you have given power to people and tehy have happily reduced their power to the people.
Governments exists to control the people.

MG23
1st Apr 2018, 00:03
The 'safe' answer of course would be for guns to be kept not in a residential home but in a secure repository such a gun club or a guarded vault.

Yes, lets keep hundreds or thousands of guns in one centralized location that the crooks all know about. Because that clearly makes sense.

With the advent of powerful, battery-powered hand tools, there's no such thing as a 'gun safe', there's only the increasing amount of time required to steal them as you make the walls and doors thicker and tougher (and exponentially more expensive).

And the local gun range is about half an hour out of town at the end of ten miles of gravel road, so any crooks who tried to break into a gun store there would have quite a while before the cops showed up.

G-CPTN
1st Apr 2018, 08:36
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/ad_193156686.jpg

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
1st Apr 2018, 08:41
Wow, they must have really wanted to get those boxes into that room. If they had pushed the boxes in end first, they would have only had to drill 2 holes.

G-CPTN
1st Apr 2018, 09:09
Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatton_Garden_safe_deposit_burglary).

radeng
1st Apr 2018, 12:03
Didn't I read the other week that someone else from the gang has been arrested?

G-CPTN
1st Apr 2018, 12:34
Didn't I read the other week that someone else from the gang has been arrested?

Michael Seed (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hatton-garden-heist-latest-updates-michael-seed-charged-burglary-jewelry-a8278786.html).

Chronus
1st Apr 2018, 19:48
The issue is one of the use of reasonable force and whether under the circumstances it was proportionate for it to be considered reasonable.
In this case the burgalary involved violent assault and the perpetrators left armed with deadly weapons. If the man, now seriously injured, pursued the perpetrators armed with a deadly weapon, not knowing where his wife had gone and intending to protect her from further harm and finding himself confronted again by the now armed perpetrators, then I would have thought that his actions were both reasonable and proportional. How could he have known wheather the threat to his life and to his wife`s was over.

Clop Cop remarks on shooting in the back. Perhaps he had Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer`s case in mind.
More recently there was the case of another farmer, 83 year old Ken Hugill. Here is the news report for that particular case:

Farmer made 'instant' decision to shoot burglar - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-humber-39259019/farmer-made-instant-decision-to-shoot-burglar).

Justice done.

Sallyann1234
1st Apr 2018, 22:43
Show me a country where you have given power to people and tehy have happily reduced their power to the people.
Governments exists to control the people.
In the UK, the elected government has reduced the power of the people to keep guns. The people seem to be very happy with the arrangement.

HyFlyer
1st Apr 2018, 22:49
Law is law, justice is justice, it would be a serious mistake to equate the two.

Striking somebody with the force to cause a skull fracture is absolutely to risk killing that person. If in the commission of that act or the immediate period after, when you were still in the vicinity that person was to be killed one could hardly argue that justice in some form hasn't been served. Whether it was a legal act is a different thing.

This dude put somebody else's life at serious risk for personal profit and died as a result. Sounds 'just' to me.

Sallyann1234
1st Apr 2018, 22:55
Yes, lets keep hundreds or thousands of guns in one centralized location that the crooks all know about. Because that clearly makes sense.

With the advent of powerful, battery-powered hand tools, there's no such thing as a 'gun safe', there's only the increasing amount of time required to steal them as you make the walls and doors thicker and tougher (and exponentially more expensive).

And the local gun range is about half an hour out of town at the end of ten miles of gravel road, so any crooks who tried to break into a gun store there would have quite a while before the cops showed up.

A different issue altogether.

No-one is going to spend so much time and effort trying to break into a central gun store, when they can buy all they want from any gun shop.

This thread is about a thief getting hold of guns held in domestic premises in the course of a burglary. It has not been suggested that the guns were the prime purpose for the break-in.

Gertrude the Wombat
1st Apr 2018, 23:35
No-one is going to spend so much time and effort trying to break into a central gun store, when they can buy all they want from any gun shop.
Possibly. But criminals are on the whole stupid, and it's not unknown for one to put far more effort into achieving something by criminal means than would have been necessary to achieve the same something by legal means.

racedo
1st Apr 2018, 23:41
In the UK, the elected government has reduced the power of the people to keep guns. The people seem to be very happy with the arrangement.

Maybe I need to rephrase the question.............

When has a Govt reduced the power it has taken from the people and returned it to its people.

Tankertrashnav
2nd Apr 2018, 00:11
In the UK, the elected government has reduced the power of the people to keep guns. The people seem to be very happy with the arrangement.

The key word here is reduced, not removed. To clarify the position it is quite legal to own and keep lethal firearms at home in the UK - although in general the type of weapons permitted is restricted to shotguns. I personally have four shotguns on my premises (all licensed and locked in a secure gun cabinet), any one of which would be able to inflict fatal wounds at short range.

With regard to the incident referred to by the OP, recent cases in this country lead me to believe the old belief that if you killed a burglar on your property you would automatically be convicted of murder or manslaughter is no longer valid. In the case in question, the homeowner confronted his armed assailants, and it would seem quite likely that they would have resumed their attack on him, (not forgetting they had already fractured his skull). In those circumstances I am quite sure a UK court would not convict him of any offence (assuming his shotgun certificate was in order!)

In the case being discussed I am losing no sleep for the would be burglars - they reaped what they sowed.

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Apr 2018, 00:44
the old belief that if you killed a burglar on your property you would automatically be convicted of murder or manslaughter is no longer valid.
It never was. The prosecution (if it got that far) always had to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that your claim of self defence was bollocks (we've had discussions here before about particular cases and assorted theoretical scenarios).

Pontius Navigator
2nd Apr 2018, 08:54
I have a lethal weapon at home. If I was in a high threat area i might keep it to hand.

I asked my brother in law, then a serving policeman, how I would stand if I inflicted serious or lethal injury on an intruder.

He said that given my training I would have been expected to be more moderate with my force compared with perhaps an ordinary member of the public.

OTOH I am a firm adherent of concentration of force and economy of effort - one firm blow with a pick axe helve rather than several with a claw hammer.

Sallyann1234
2nd Apr 2018, 09:12
Maybe I need to rephrase the question.............

When has a Govt reduced the power it has taken from the people and returned it to its people.
Maybe you need to rephrase the question even more, until it bears at least some little relevance to the original post.

sitigeltfel
2nd Apr 2018, 12:04
On Friday night, a young man was seen lurking by cars outside a nightclub in Rognac, just North of Marseille.
An altercation broke out, which was broken up by bouncers.
Shortly afterwards a group of nightclub customers went in search of him, suspecting he had been trying to break into cars.
Some time later his body was found at the side of the road, he had been kicked and stabbed to death.

The nightclub is notorious for shootings and other violence and the council have been trying to get it closed, without success.

MG23
2nd Apr 2018, 19:24
No-one is going to spend so much time and effort trying to break into a central gun store, when they can buy all they want from any gun shop.

And where can they do that?

Hint: America has something like 50,000 gun laws across the country, and, as I understand it, gun shops are required to check a Federal criminal database before they're allowed to sell a gun to you.

The main reasons criminals don't often break into houses to steal guns are:

1. The criminals don't know whether any guns are there, unless the owner is foolish enough to let people know that.

2. They're more likely to be rifles or shotguns than handguns, and it's much easier to hold up a 7/11 with a Glock than a Lee-Enfield or AR-15.

That would give them far more incentive to break into a centralized store where they can be sure there'll be large numbers of handguns, and they just have to figure out how to break in and get away before the cops arrive.

arketip
2nd Apr 2018, 21:02
That would give them far more incentive to break into a centralized store where they can be sure there'll be large numbers of handguns, and they just have to figure out how to break in and get away before the cops arrive.

Isn't that the same with gun shops?

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Apr 2018, 21:40
The main reasons criminals don't often break into houses to steal guns are:

1. The criminals don't know whether any guns are there, unless the owner is foolish enough to let people know that.
So your reckon the people who put those "armed response" signs in their front gardens are "foolish" because they're encouraging criminals to break in to steal the guns?

MG23
2nd Apr 2018, 23:53
Isn't that the same with gun shops?

There was a gun store robbery around here a couple of years back. I forget the details, but if I remember correctly the crooks got away with maybe a dozen guns, and the store owner got a good telling-off for not storing them safely.

If gun owners had to store their guns at shooting ranges, there'd be thousands of guns at every range, not dozens, and many of those ranges would be outside town. Whereas gun stores tend to be within minutes of police stations, so the crooks would be lucky to have broken into a safe by the time the cops got there, let alone got away.

In that case, I presume the crooks knew they weren't being stored properly and decided it was a good target where they could get in and out in time.

Chronus
4th Apr 2018, 19:07
On the six o`clock main BBC news 78 year old man arrested on suspicion of murder of a 38 year old who attempted burglary at his home. The report said there were two burglars who the 78 year old confronted at his house. One was carrying a screw driver and the old boy stabbed him with a kitchen knife. The other got away.

So here we have our own version of "in self defence" and "reasonable force". It will be interesting to follow how things develop.

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Apr 2018, 19:25
On the six o`clock main BBC news 78 year old man arrested on suspicion of murder of a 38 year old who attempted burglary at his home. The report said there were two burglars who the 78 year old confronted at his house. One was carrying a screw driver and the old boy stabbed him with a kitchen knife. The other got away.

So here we have our own version of "in self defence" and "reasonable force". It will be interesting to follow how things develop.
Or, it has just occurred to me, they're keeping him safe until they've caught the other one who got away?

Chronus
4th Apr 2018, 20:33
Or, it has just occurred to me, they're keeping him safe until they've caught the other one who got away?

Yes quite likely. Equally likely is they have the old boy banged up behind bars to keep the other burglar suffering the same fate as his mate. Must be quite some old boy.