14 year old shoots intruder (Page 3)

Yeah, I would think twice about entering someone's home in MN with the intent to harm.  

I understand now after some reading that Arizona has this "Stand your ground" law, which is why everyone is saying this kid "did the right thing."  I respect the law and can respect that what he did was a legal option.

I live in a state where we do not have this kind of law.   I suppose what I have a problem with is the law that allows citizens to use deadly force when they are threatened in this way.    Would I stand by and "let" someone attack my family?  Of course not.  But all I know is that this guy entered their home and supposedly was armed.

*What would you have done in this situation then? If you were a gun owner, would you have defended your life and your families life if you had that option available or would you chose to wait for the man to enter your home and possibly be able to harm you before you harmed him?   I am not trying to sound mean, just curious.

I don't think it's okay that some laws state it's okay for a teenager to decide if I have committed a crime worthy of being shot and potentially killed.   I don't doubt this person unlawfully entered the house, and I am SURE these kids felt vulnerable and threatened, the intruder probably was mean and horrible and probably would have hurt one or more of these kids.   I just thought I lived in a society where we all were treated with due process. 

To me, thats all that needs saying. The intruder unlawfully and by use of Force, entered anothers home. The child felt threatened, vulnerable because age and size and ability to defend themselves from a stranger who is trying to get into their home. And according to you the intruder probably was mean and probably would have hurt the kids and you dont think its ok to do something about it???? I for one agree with the kid and think he did what he was supposed to do in that situation. If it were me, I probably would have done the exact same thing. I am not going to wait around to see if the person has a weapon or intends on hurting me because they have already broadcasted their intentions to me when they tried to commit a felony by forcibly breaking into my house. I am sure they didnt want cookies. I dont feel sorry for the person who got shot. I am sure its not his first rodeo and nobody knows what he would have done to the kids if he would have gotten into the house. Glad the kid realized that too and stopped it from happening.

Minnesota has a rather standard self-defense statute that states, basically, a person can use reasonable force against someone who is going to commit an offense on them.  https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.06 The state did pass a law to "expand" the law to the Castle Doctrine, but it was vetoed by our Governor in the spring.  

What we have is not really the same as the Castle Doctrine or Stand your Ground laws that are becoming so popular.  They are about protecting your home (boat, car, whatever) against intruders regardless of the intruder's threat to you personally.   It's funny the example in your linked story is about a guy who shot and killed two intruders who were not armed and he had no reason to believe their were (didn't see anything like a weapon), but trying to insist they "must have been armed" was his only defense.    Too bad he also admitted to shooting them long past the point of self-defense.   He is now on trial for their murders.

Self-defense has long been a standard in the US legal system and I am pretty sure I would be protected legally if I used force (which maybe ended in death) to protect myself in the Best Buy parking lot if I was staring down the barrel of another person's gun.   That's unrelated to my "castle."

I am not going to try to defend my personal feelings on gun control related laws, but I am trying hard to keep the facts straight (which is why I responded the second time to clarify what I had learned and to redefine my position.)   I am sure no jury member (myself included) would fault this kid for shooting the intruder.   My point is that this whole thing just smacks too much of vigilantism and that's a dangerous road and not what I signed up for.

Agree...   Note to others: if you break into occupied dwelling there is a likelihood of you being shot and killed.   Maybe this could be made into a great PSA commercial.  Unfortunately these stories rarely strike home until someone or someone close to to them is affected 1st hand by a burglary or assault.  I do not want to be the one wondering "what if" I had protected myself vs. assuming the burglar is a decent fellow just looking to pick up a few things. 

This is the same group that recommends:

• Warning labels on foods that pose a high choking risk
• A recall of food products that pose a significant choking hazard
• The establishment of a nationwide food-related choking-incident surveillance and reporting system
• A commitment from food manufacturers to design new food and redesign existing food to minimize choking risk, to the extent possible

How can you take the AAP seriously when they want to redesign the hot dog.

That's not true.

Or an 11 year old brings a gun to school to "stop another Newtown" from happening.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15997124-sixth-grader-in-utah-brings-gun-to-school-to-avoid-connecticut-style-attack-district-spokesman-says#comments

sometimes this happens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/5-year-old-loaded-gun-florida_n_815471.html

Links please?

No, it's not.

It's actually MUCH more likely to not be involved in any incident at all...

Statistics are funny, yeah?

AAAAAHHHHH!!! My head is spinning.  Who to believe???

Seriously though, does anyone have any stats or studies they wanna lay on us?

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/1998/08000/Isolated_Ulnar_Shaft_Fractures.10.aspx

http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Abstract/2010/02000/Do_Guns_Provide_Safety__At_What_Cost_.16.aspx

It's not to say having a gun for self defense isn't a valid reason to have one, it surely is, but I think the horribleness of the consequences of a home invasion causes people to overinflate the chances of it happening while minimizng or rationalizing away the risks of accidents, etc which are statistically more likely. 

I don't need a study, I went to math in grade school.  There are 300-400,000,000 guns in this country.....you can search around but the number most cited is that 56% of American households have guns.  Roughly 16,000 gun deaths per year....abgout half self-inflicted or accidental. 

OK...here comes the part where you need at least a 1st grade math education......what has the best chance happening with the gun in a home.

A. Nothing.

B. Self-Defense

C. Accident or self-inflicted gunshot

See?  No study needed.

This is actually a very rare case of the Government allowing it's citizens to be free. Those that feel that people breaking into their only safe place on Earth is unacceptable, and is unwilling to believe the intruder when they say they are not there to do harm... has the full authority of the law to use deadly force if they so choose to.

For those of you that feel a gun is more trouble than it is worth, or are unwilling to use deadly force despite an intruder in your house... you are perfectly free to not have a gun in your house and find out the "what's going to happen" at the conclusion of the home invasion.

Wow... parents allowed the ability to use what ever means, and decide what level of risk they are willing to take, when it comes to the safety and well being of their family in their own home. It's this country great!

By all means, feel free not to exercise the rights afforded to you... but for once stop vilifying those that choose to use them.

120,000,000 households in America.  56% have at least 1 gun.  I'll use 50% so it's easier....60,000,000 households with guns.  Best estimate that I could find (actually the largest number) is that there are 1500 accidental gun deaths per year.  There is no way they all happen in a home, not with shooting ranges and every thing else, but I'll just go ahead and pretend every one of the 1500 happened at home.

.0025%......that's the number we are talking about here. 1 in every 40,000. (and that's giving more than every single margin of error possible)  That's the percentage of households with guns have an accidental shooting.  Shall I add in the average number of people per household to see what the chance that any individual will be shot by accident?  Is there any other issue on the planet that would get this much attention over such a small number?

This is ALL fueled on emotion....all of it.  While I value life as much as any person I know, the discussion over how dangerous firearms are just doesn't hold water. If you want to save lives, this is a pretty low percentage cause to run up the flag pole.

Where are you getting your numbers from. The only stuff I found was different. Not saying I'm right, just curious where some accurate data is.

From the CDC... 2011 (adjusted) accidental deaths due to firearms.. 592. (raw) like 850

The NRA has 250-280 million guns. ???

Gallop had 30% of households have guns.

And yes, even with those numbers, the actual rate is very very small. That's what I was trying to do when I looked for data. Yes, the US dwarfs others in mass shootings. Not cool. But we also dwarf others in ownership... and when you look at the actual number of events compared to owners and weapons, it is ridiculously small. Meaning all those guns are not the problem... the 62 individuals over 30 years are. And yes, your shooting was among those 62.

While there is little to no doubt our death &/or murder with firearms is high compared to other nations a couple of other statistics stand out as well.

Let's look at ******** Rape  and  Assault

USA ************** .4% ***** 1.2%

UK *************** .9% ***** 2.8%

Australia ********** 1.0% ***** 2.4%

Canada ************ .8% ***** 2.3%

With one exception they are at least double the USA.

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

If reported rapes in the USA were to double that would be an additional 1,200,000 rapes in the USA.

Very well said.