College Student Kills Intruder With a Sword

[JWAN]

Maryland has no Castle Doctrine but given the circumstances I highly doubt they'll charge this kid with anything, and if they do it'll lose in appeal. Public Support would be behind him.

Well I gotta say that in California a burglar tried to break into a house using a sky light, well he jumped on it, it collapsed and the burglar fell on a meat cleaver. The burgular sued the owner of the house and won.

Another case out of California, a burglar broke into an elderly woman's house and she shot him in the leg and the arm (I think he died, because the round to the leg hit an artery) but the cops hauled the old lady away and shes in jail waiting for a court appearance. Shes like 86 years old.

 

[Starke]

I remember a cop once explaining that the best weapon to defend yourself with in most homes is a longsword. Handguns over penetrate, and during an adrenaline rush it's very easy to miss with a handgun. Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient. Knife fighting is a very VERY dangerous thing to do. But a sword gives you plenty of reach, and the risk of the other guy carrying one to pull on you is very slim.

I would rather use what I've found useful in the past. Mossburg 500. I had 3 break ins in my house and the last 2 were solved with a gun. The first one the guy jumped through a window.

Yeah, the sound of someone wracking a shotgun is a definite attention getter. Also how is it everyone quotes the same post from me, that I made while I was sick as hell and not completely in my right mind?

 

[JWAN]

Honestly, this raises the question of why somebody smart enough to go to John Hopkins is dumb to have spent money on a goddamned sword. Have the lowered the standards since they let Jeff Altman in? You'd think they'd have raised them after that.

Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient.

Over penetration is a bad thing? I'm not normally all for guns in the home but if I'm pulling a lethal weapon on an intruder I wanna be sure that anyone I'm protecting is going to be safe.

I can always replace the carpet. I can't really replace a family member.

Also, 'not very proficient'? If you're 'not very proficient' with a longsword you're going to end up swinging it like a baseball bat. Slapping someone with the flat edge of the blade isn't nearly as effective as smacking someone with...say, a cricket bat.

I'm sure this has been answered before but the issue with 'over penetration' isn't that you'll damage the wall it's that you'll hit somebody through the wall, or in the next house, or out on the sidewalk. And all weapons are inneffective if you're not proficient with them, so that statements a bit redundant. A given as it were.

Winchester AA (Double aught) Buck Shot
then get a full choke and then get a Mossburg 500 cruiser or a Remmington 870 Magnum, (Tac 870 some people call them)

Ive said it before and Ill say it again when I used my 500 I told the guy to sit down and get comfortable and I waited for the cops, if he would have done anything stupid I had (and still have) no reserves, I would have killed him.
I knew for sure he had one knife, whos to say he didnt have another one?

 

[FoolKiller]

Although I cannot comment on certain cases with the sparse information you have so kindly provided, your decision to fall back to the good old Daily Mail stalwarts of killer chav's and societies need to murder paedophiles shows I shouldn't even bother.
The British Legal system works as well as it possibly can with the resources it is provided. To look broadly at the cases you provide, of a gang of youths randomly attacking an old man and a paedophile (suspected or otherwise) being singled out with the sole intent of killing him, distinctions are obvious.
Whereas the killing of the veteran was probably the result of a spur of the moment decision, the killing of the paedophile was a premeditated and cold-blooded attack, with planning obviously going into it. Premeditated murder always rates higher than murder/manslaughter and vigilantism is a crime in itself. The chavs were most likely minors and could plead 'diminished responsibilty' for their actions.
But before you again cry that 'Paedophiles deserve to die'(I like my rhymes )
Remember the case of another recent murder of a(suspected) paedophile by a member of the public, a man who could not distinguish between an individual who brutally assaults children and a Paediatrician because, in his own words 'they both touch kids.'

Nice. You managed to argue against yourself and lose.

You originally state that killing someone is unacceptable whatever the circumstances may be and then go on to start differentiating premeditation and spur of the moment. As well, in both instances those would have been the aggressors being imprisoned. In this case, it was the victim who did the killing in defense of himself.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Hiten Mitsurugi Ryu?

Congratz to those who get this refrence.

 

[Desert Tiger]

Better not get charged.

 

[Agrosmurf]

I do belive this kid is a badass. But I can't belive he asked the intuder what he was doing. Thats like asking an execusioner If he's going to hurt you. If I saw someone in my house while I was weilding a sword... *Jab* *jab*.

 

[Zefar]

Not sure if someone mentioned this... but can someone explain to me how a man who was arrested 29 times was still on the streets?

Like I know we're pretty lenient with the whole innocent until proven guilty spiel, but if you've been arrested for breaking into someones home like... more than a few times... it doesn't seem likely that you're going to stop doing it.

That's the part of the story that stood out most to me...

That's easy.

They go

"Oh maybe he'll be nicer NEXT time."

And people claim "They don't repeat their crimes" pffft yea right. 29 times in a row? At least someone stopped him for good.

 

[Rassan]

Hmm perhaps I should get a sword myself.

 

[Yokai]

29 arrests? Not only was he a career criminal, he was a bad career criminal. Perhaps he didn't need to die, but otherwise he would've gone back to stealing stuff and getting arrested for it...again and again. Plus, he tried to lunge unarmed at a guy holding a fucking sword. What a moron.
It's good to know that swords are a legitimate method of home defense. I need to get me one.

 

[Simon Hadow]

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!​

Seriously though, thank Cthulhu for the Castle Clause, the one law out there that allows a person to defend themselves in a world where courts are more concerned with the rights and wellbeing of criminals than the victims. And Cthulhu damn Canada for not having this law.

Dude... NEVER should have brought Canada into this!!! Kidding, but I'm pretty sure we here in Canada do have a law like that, we just have to state that if they don't leave our property,we kill them, and give them a chance to leave.

OT: Kudos to this guy, had the guts to take matters into his own hands. And bonus points for style.

 

[Ashtovo]

I remember a cop once explaining that the best weapon to defend yourself with in most homes is a longsword. Handguns over penetrate, and during an adrenaline rush it's very easy to miss with a handgun. Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient. Knife fighting is a very VERY dangerous thing to do. But a sword gives you plenty of reach, and the risk of the other guy carrying one to pull on you is very slim.

ooh, my fencing lessons and military sabre is actually usefull!

 

[ThePeaceFrog]

Although I cannot comment on certain cases with the sparse information you have so kindly provided, your decision to fall back to the good old Daily Mail stalwarts of killer chav's and societies need to murder paedophiles shows I shouldn't even bother.
The British Legal system works as well as it possibly can with the resources it is provided. To look broadly at the cases you provide, of a gang of youths randomly attacking an old man and a paedophile (suspected or otherwise) being singled out with the sole intent of killing him, distinctions are obvious.
Whereas the killing of the veteran was probably the result of a spur of the moment decision, the killing of the paedophile was a premeditated and cold-blooded attack, with planning obviously going into it. Premeditated murder always rates higher than murder/manslaughter and vigilantism is a crime in itself. The chavs were most likely minors and could plead 'diminished responsibilty' for their actions.
But before you again cry that 'Paedophiles deserve to die'(I like my rhymes )
Remember the case of another recent murder of a(suspected) paedophile by a member of the public, a man who could not distinguish between an individual who brutally assaults children and a Paediatrician because, in his own words 'they both touch kids.'

Nice. You managed to argue against yourself and lose.

You originally state that killing someone is unacceptable whatever the circumstances may be and then go on to start differentiating premeditation and spur of the moment. As well, in both instances those would have been the aggressors being imprisoned. In this case, it was the victim who did the killing in defense of himself.

What I actually said in my first statement was, that in my eyes,'the taking of another mans life cannot be justified' and furthered my views in a later statement that in this case what sickened me more was the reactions that were being elicted by this forum, those commenting on how they would be happy to do the same and how he 'deserved' to be killed.

On the front of how the British judicial system works, you have mistaken my comment that'The British Legal system works as well as it possibly can with the resources it is provided,' as my saying that my ethics and the system's always run together. In that comment I was merely attempting to explain the reasons behind the British legal system's more dubious decisions, not my own views towards the subject - it is known as trying to remain impartial.

However, in the face of this, although I still believe the taking of a life can never truly be justified, I do understand that each case is different and should be treated as such.

Finally, arguments are not solely about winning or losing, but instead defending ideals that you as an individual hold dear. I would prefer to lose an argument than to sacrifice the very ideals that I fought so hard to defend. Life is not about decisions that can be solely viewed in black or white, but when given the chance to dwell upon such cases as this, it does our souls good to test our own morality into choosing what you personally see as right or wrong and for once not make compromises. For me, I see the killing of another as wrong, and whether it comes down to the state or the individual themself, the action never goes unpunished, however well justified you feel the action may have been.

 

[Tharticus]

Wow, I never expected this to happen. Karma is a *****. Shouldn't be charged for self defense.

 

[Roxilla84]

Now I have to admit to my husband that his assortment of bladed weaponry near the front door is good for more than just scaring off Jehovah's witnesses...

 

[DirkGently]

Honestly, this raises the question of why somebody smart enough to go to John Hopkins is dumb to have spent money on a goddamned sword. Have the lowered the standards since they let Jeff Altman in? You'd think they'd have raised them after that.

Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient.

Over penetration is a bad thing? I'm not normally all for guns in the home but if I'm pulling a lethal weapon on an intruder I wanna be sure that anyone I'm protecting is going to be safe.

I can always replace the carpet. I can't really replace a family member.

Also, 'not very proficient'? If you're 'not very proficient' with a longsword you're going to end up swinging it like a baseball bat. Slapping someone with the flat edge of the blade isn't nearly as effective as smacking someone with...say, a cricket bat.

I'm sure this has been answered before but the issue with 'over penetration' isn't that you'll damage the wall it's that you'll hit somebody through the wall, or in the next house, or out on the sidewalk. And all weapons are inneffective if you're not proficient with them, so that statements a bit redundant. A given as it were.

Winchester AA (Double aught) Buck Shot
then get a full choke and then get a Mossburg 500 cruiser or a Remmington 870 Magnum, (Tac 870 some people call them)

Ive said it before and Ill say it again when I used my 500 I told the guy to sit down and get comfortable and I waited for the cops, if he would have done anything stupid I had (and still have) no reserves, I would have killed him.
I knew for sure he had one knife, whos to say he didnt have another one?

Uh.... Why are you quoting me?

 

[JWAN]

Honestly, this raises the question of why somebody smart enough to go to John Hopkins is dumb to have spent money on a goddamned sword. Have the lowered the standards since they let Jeff Altman in? You'd think they'd have raised them after that.

Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient.

Over penetration is a bad thing? I'm not normally all for guns in the home but if I'm pulling a lethal weapon on an intruder I wanna be sure that anyone I'm protecting is going to be safe.

I can always replace the carpet. I can't really replace a family member.

Also, 'not very proficient'? If you're 'not very proficient' with a longsword you're going to end up swinging it like a baseball bat. Slapping someone with the flat edge of the blade isn't nearly as effective as smacking someone with...say, a cricket bat.

I'm sure this has been answered before but the issue with 'over penetration' isn't that you'll damage the wall it's that you'll hit somebody through the wall, or in the next house, or out on the sidewalk. And all weapons are inneffective if you're not proficient with them, so that statements a bit redundant. A given as it were.

Winchester AA (Double aught) Buck Shot
then get a full choke and then get a Mossburg 500 cruiser or a Remmington 870 Magnum, (Tac 870 some people call them)

Ive said it before and Ill say it again when I used my 500 I told the guy to sit down and get comfortable and I waited for the cops, if he would have done anything stupid I had (and still have) no reserves, I would have killed him.
I knew for sure he had one knife, whos to say he didnt have another one?

Uh.... Why are you quoting me?

Chances are AA wont over penetrate especially with a shorter barreled shotgun because the human body will absorb the energy and some pellets may go through but the majority will expend their energy and stay in the person who is shot.

Or use hollow point 2, 3/4 inch mags.

 

[DirkGently]

Honestly, this raises the question of why somebody smart enough to go to John Hopkins is dumb to have spent money on a goddamned sword. Have the lowered the standards since they let Jeff Altman in? You'd think they'd have raised them after that.

Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient.

Over penetration is a bad thing? I'm not normally all for guns in the home but if I'm pulling a lethal weapon on an intruder I wanna be sure that anyone I'm protecting is going to be safe.

I can always replace the carpet. I can't really replace a family member.

Also, 'not very proficient'? If you're 'not very proficient' with a longsword you're going to end up swinging it like a baseball bat. Slapping someone with the flat edge of the blade isn't nearly as effective as smacking someone with...say, a cricket bat.

I'm sure this has been answered before but the issue with 'over penetration' isn't that you'll damage the wall it's that you'll hit somebody through the wall, or in the next house, or out on the sidewalk. And all weapons are inneffective if you're not proficient with them, so that statements a bit redundant. A given as it were.

Winchester AA (Double aught) Buck Shot
then get a full choke and then get a Mossburg 500 cruiser or a Remmington 870 Magnum, (Tac 870 some people call them)

Ive said it before and Ill say it again when I used my 500 I told the guy to sit down and get comfortable and I waited for the cops, if he would have done anything stupid I had (and still have) no reserves, I would have killed him.
I knew for sure he had one knife, whos to say he didnt have another one?

Uh.... Why are you quoting me?

Chances are AA wont over penetrate especially with a shorter barreled shotgun because the human body will absorb the energy and some pellets may go through but the majority will expend their energy and stay in the person who is shot.

Or use hollow point 2, 3/4 inch mags.

I was just pointing out that the main reason over penetration is a bad thing isn't property damage but accidently hitting somebody you can't see. The bullet is a cold, dead-on killer.

 

[j0frenzy]

I remember a cop once explaining that the best weapon to defend yourself with in most homes is a longsword. Handguns over penetrate, and during an adrenaline rush it's very easy to miss with a handgun. Shotguns have the over penetration problem as well, and aren't very effective in closed quarters if you're not very proficient. Knife fighting is a very VERY dangerous thing to do. But a sword gives you plenty of reach, and the risk of the other guy carrying one to pull on you is very slim.

ooh, my fencing lessons and military sabre is actually usefull!

That was also in a Peter David book (Knight Life). He also said that practicing with it is great exercise for your biceps.