New York Man Arrested After Shooting Home Invaders

a reply to: dawnstar

Do you really want me to bring up the story of the pregnant women in Alabama who was recently thrown in jail after being shot during an argument in a parking lot which cause her to lose the baby.

According to Sillyolme, that's perfectly acceptable because it is the law doing it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sillyolme

Kindly site the right to own a car?

I will wait.....

Firearms ownership is like no other ownership in the usa.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I thought this was interesting, "New York state law does not require a license to own or possess long guns."

Most of the state is open country and very big on hunting. Pockets of people with lots of woods in between.

a reply to: dawnstar

Well, the key ingredient was edited into the original post I was replying to while I was typing this, hence the edit, but I'll keep the bulk in. The pregnant woman was the one who sought out the other woman and instigated the entire event. That, my friend, is why they're punishing her over the other woman. She was 5 months pregnant and decided that it was ok to pick a fight with another person, putting her unborn child's life at risk.

www.nytimes.com...

"Ms. Jones, 28, was charged with manslaughter and released from jail on Thursday after posting $50,000 bond, according to the authorities and the website of Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office in Alabama. The police have said she was culpable because she started the fight that led to the shooting and failed to remove herself from harm’s way."

If the woman was the one who was attacked as well as shot, I'm 100% positive the outcome would have been different. That's not how it happened, though. She attacked the other woman because they apparently both had relations with the "baby daddy". So, whether you like it or not, that was self defense.

"“The only true victim in this was the unborn baby,” Lt. Danny Reid of the Pleasant Grove Police Department said after the shooting in December, AL.com reported. “It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby.”"

When it comes to this case, either 1 of 2 things come to mind: The woman either felt that because she was pregnant she could do anything she wanted because how dare anyone attack a pregnant woman, or that she just flat out didn't care whether the child got hurt or not. Both of those cases are wrong in my book.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Just pointing out that this law was written so long ago I think it was at least close to the time when they were publicly whipping people. So well if the people at that time felt it was worthy, they may have been able to do it? But those who wrote the law are all dead and buried by now, so they don't have to worry about our public outrage.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I sent you a PM

a reply to: shooterbrody

I believe that falls under pursuit of happiness.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

I believe that falls under pursuit of happiness.

So site the right.
Firearms are included.
Cars and other possessions are not.
There is a very good reason for that.

I will wait for you to site the right to own a car.

a reply to: Necrobile

Believe I said the pregnant lady started the argument. And by the account, it started as an argument. Weather it ever escalated to the point of physical. contact and just who was the first to initiate physical contact none of the reports I've seen is really that clear on. But, pregnancy can sometimes really mess with someone's mentally. If just starting an argument is a justifiable reason to kill someone and then throw the person in jail because they lost the baby. It's not right.

It's becoming quite obvious to me that the only sure way to preserve the 2nd Amendment is to take all power of regulation away from the states. That is possible; a single federal law could demand that no state has the right to legislate firearms beyond what the Federal government does. Now, before anyone goes "I don't want those idiots in DC regulating my guns," remember that such a law would not override the 2nd Amendment... it would just make it harder for regulations to be passed, and it would put any questions about gun control one step closer to the Supreme Court.

Alabama does something similar. The Alabama Constitution states that no municipality in the state can pass any local firearm laws. The power to regulate firearms is reserved to the state. This would just be one step up in rank.

No one not actively seeking to engage in criminal activity should ever face the decision of die or go to jail. No one. That this ever happens is in itself a travesty of justice.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sillyolme


It has everything to do with the Dems. They did arrest him for defending his home because if he didn't defend his home he wouldn't have been arrested. Instead, he would be robbed and dead. Yes, I will continue to educate people on how the left wants to take your guns and your gun rights away while giving a free pass to illegal immigrants that do nothing but destroy our country.

a reply to: dawnstar

Hypothetical: You're at home with your two kids, who are watching TV in the living room, while you fold clothes in your bedroom. Suddenly, you hear your kids scream downstairs and hear the voice of an unknown intruder attacking and threatening your kids. Your husband has his gun in the nightstand, by your bed, but it isn't registered in your name. Do you use his gun illegally to defend your kid's lives, or do you call 911 and wait for the cops, knowing full well that your kid's lives are at stake?

originally posted by: dawnstar
Believe I said the pregnant lady started the argument. And by the account, it started as an argument. Weather it ever escalated to the point of physical. contact and just who was the first to initiate physical contact none of the reports I've seen is really that clear on. But, pregnancy can sometimes really mess with someone's mentally. If just starting an argument is a justifiable reason to kill someone and then throw the person in jail because they lost the baby. It's not right.

Sure, you edited it in while I was typing away, so you must pardon me for typing while you were editing. With that said, though, if you read enough articles about it, you'll read things like this:

"“When a five-month pregnant woman initiates a fight and attacks another person, I believe some responsibility lies with her as to any injury to her unborn child,” Lt. Reid said then. “That child is dependent on its mother to try to keep it from harm, and she shouldn’t seek out unnecessary physical altercations.”"

It definitely does sound like it got physical, and it was definitely sought out. Growing up I was raised by mostly women, so I understand what you mean by pregnancy can mess with someone mentally thanks to hormones. That's no excuse for putting ones child in danger, though. If you feel it's ok for a pregnant woman to attack someone else all because of her hormones, then, well, there's just something not right there.

I've lived with migraines for almost 38 years and sometimes they hurt a LOT. Would the pain I feel be an excuse to attack someone I didn't like?? I couldn't control it, I was in pain and lashed out. Or would you think I deserve whatever happened to me after the attack?? Personally, I would say I deserve any backlash I would get for attacking someone, because my pain is no excuse to go after someone else.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Yes, I will continue to educate people on how the left wants to take your guns and your gun rights away while giving a free pass to illegal immigrants that do nothing but destroy our country.

That appears to be the dnc platform for 2020.
It is scary.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I would hope the gun was at least registered in his name? But ya, if I thought I could safely use it without hitting the kids. If I had my doubts I'd find another way. And if this guy inherited the gun from his father and just brought it home and left it in the house like some seem to be claiming, I'm sorry, but how could he be sure he could safely fire it? Did he have a shooting range in his basement where he could get used to it, make sure any sight was lined up properly, that it wouldn't misfire?

But I will tell you this also, I have cane, frying pans. Big sharp knifes, even an illegal Bowie knife and I would either stop the attacker if die trying, pregnant or not .

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: eletheia

NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT...

The gun was unregistered. I am sure he wont be in too much trouble for that.

His kitchen knives will not have been registered?? so using one of them would

have been OK?

Bottom line is if they hadn't been where they shouldn't have been they would

have still been alive?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

I've got about 20 guns.
A mix of pistols, shotguns and rifles.

I have holsters for carrying 2 of my pistols.
Both are registered as am I.

The other 18 dont need to be registered and most are not.
This gun fall into the later category in my opinion.
Unless he carries the gun outside his home it nobody's business.

There were probably 10 different guns in my home growing up. My dad was a cop. The only guns I know would be registered were his service weapons (a .38 snub and a S&W.45). The rest were various shotguns and rifles. All probably upwards of 50 years old at the time...

The issue is that a lot of people had firearms well before any registration requirements. It is not reasonable nor rational to expect they are going to go register firearms that may have been passed down from family member to family member.

If the guns are being taken out of the home, then that is an entirely different situation.

The matter should be investigated sure. The man shot 2 people to death.
But his age, and the circumstances he should not be held in remand while it's investigated and during the trial if he was indeed protecting his life and considering they were intruders in his home.

Does he have a criminal history? Is there reason to think he is a flight risk? He says they made their way up the stairs maybe evidence shows they were leaving and shot in the back?
Get's grey when the threat is over and you still choose to 'defend' yourself.

Not enough details in that linked article to pass judgement at this point.

a reply to: Necrobile

Kind of like a mob of unite the rihters came into Charlottesville armed and ready for battle against the citizens of the city but according to so many, they were just expressing their freedom of speech?

If the lady just ran across her at the store and wanted to give her a piece of her mind and the "fight" and "attack" was verbal then I disagree with you. If the lady actually physically attacked the other lady then you are right. Maybe later I will try to hunt down the mugs shots online see if there's any evidence to support that they had an all out brawl.
And yes I edited the post, I corrected a mistake in the first word of this post by one letter along with a few other typos.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Speaking of picking and choosing laws to follow...

You know what else is against the law? Breaking into our country.

Is THAT law okay to break?