An alternate use for "gun-free home" signs

[Lumpy]

copied from the Quora.com question and answer site:

Would you put a sign in your yard that says your home is a gun-free home, to support gun control?
John Richter
John Richter, Gunsmith at Guns and Firearms (1984-present)
Answered Jul 1
Absolutely! I could probably kill five or six s***heads this way, if I used a suppressed .22 and waited in the dark for them to enter. I guess if I put bars on all windows but one, I could sit in a comfy chair and just funnel them in, right in front of me. Of course, I would have to use a house in town, no way they would make it to the house here on the ranch.

Legally, it would be a mess…it could be considered premeditated, due to the planning, but then I only presented them with the opportunity to commit burglary of a habitation, I did not in any way entice them…and here in Texas, I am perfectly legal shooting someone who enters my home in this way, particularly at night. Hell, I can shoot them breaking into my car in the driveway. I love Texas.

Yes, I would do that. Painters drop cloths in the room of entry would be a must, and a bluetooth headset playing music would make it more enjoyable. NVG’s for sure, but I have those.

So YES. Final answer.

[hammAR]

Isn't that considered baiting in MN....................

[Randygmn]

Isn't that considered baiting in MN....................

Or being a "willing participant "......

Forgot his name, but there was the old man a few years ago who did a similar thing and shot those 2 teenagers he sat and waited for. He got a hefty prison sentence after executing them. I'm not entirely sure what he did was even wrong, considering in some states what he did was 100% justifiable. Minnesota, not so much.

[xd ED]

Isn't that considered baiting in MN....................

Or being a "willing participant "......

Forgot his name, but there was the old man a few years ago who did a similar thing and shot those 2 teenagers he sat and waited for. He got a hefty prison sentence after executing them. I'm not entirely sure what he did was even wrong, considering in some states what he did was 100% justifiable. Minnesota, not so much.

By "justifiable", are you suggesting the act is legal?
In what state(s) can one hold somebody against their will and execute them?

[LumberZach]

Isn't that considered baiting in MN....................

Or being a "willing participant "......

Forgot his name, but there was the old man a few years ago who did a similar thing and shot those 2 teenagers he sat and waited for. He got a hefty prison sentence after executing them. I'm not entirely sure what he did was even wrong, considering in some states what he did was 100% justifiable. Minnesota, not so much.

Byron Smith in little falls. I don't disagree with his conviction. Had he called the police right away and not recorded that tape I think he would have gotten off with it. He kept the bodies in his garage for more than 24 hours before calling the police and reporting what happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Randygmn]

Isn't that considered baiting in MN....................

Or being a "willing participant "......

Forgot his name, but there was the old man a few years ago who did a similar thing and shot those 2 teenagers he sat and waited for. He got a hefty prison sentence after executing them. I'm not entirely sure what he did was even wrong, considering in some states what he did was 100% justifiable. Minnesota, not so much.

By "justifiable", are you suggesting the act is legal?
In what state(s) can one hold somebody against their will and execute them?

Clearly not legal in Minnesota. As the original article stated, in Texas, for example, the only justification necessary for a legal shooting is having an intruder in your house. Might even cover the property too. I'm not too hung up on the other facts of the case. I don't care that he recorded it. We expect our police to have cameras now, too. That could be viewed as a prudent precaution. IMO, the shooting should've been justified. The killing shot...... not so much. So there's the rub. But I would support strong SYG/Castle laws that protect the Citizen over the criminal, everytime.

[xd ED]

Clearly not legal in Minnesota. As the original article stated, in Texas, for example, the only justification necessary for a legal shooting is having an intruder in your house. Might even cover the property too. I'm not too hung up on the other facts of the case. I don't care that he recorded it. We expect our police to have cameras now, too. That could be viewed as a prudent precaution. IMO, the shooting should've been justified. The killing shot...... not so much. So there's the rub. But I would support strong SYG/Castle laws that protect the Citizen over the criminal, everytime.

I'm a bit confused:
How do you justify shooting someone who is on thier knees, with a headshot from a rifle, and at the same time not justify "...the kill shot..."?
Do you consider this a self defense shooting?

ETA:
Had Smith been aquitted , the reaction would have setback self defense/ firearms law/ SYG 2 decades, IMHO.

[Randygmn]

Clearly not legal in Minnesota. As the original article stated, in Texas, for example, the only justification necessary for a legal shooting is having an intruder in your house. Might even cover the property too. I'm not too hung up on the other facts of the case. I don't care that he recorded it. We expect our police to have cameras now, too. That could be viewed as a prudent precaution. IMO, the shooting should've been justified. The killing shot...... not so much. So there's the rub. But I would support strong SYG/Castle laws that protect the Citizen over the criminal, everytime.

I'm a bit confused:
How do you justify shooting someone who is on thier knees, with a headshot from a rifle, and at the same time not justify "...the kill shot..."?
Do you consider this a self defense shooting?

ETA:
Had Smith been aquitted , the reaction would have setback self defense/ firearms law/ SYG 2 decades, IMHO.

So, you're definitively saying that all head shots are completely disabling and there's no further threat? Always? I've seen videos of people being shot multiple times and still fighting back. Cops shoot people all the time in less threatening situations. Aren't they citizens, too. Are we second class and not entitled to protect ourselves and homes? The killing shot, from my understanding, was when one of the teens was laying flat and motionless, where he went and put the gun under their chin and pulled the trigger. That's the ONLY problem I see here.

[xd ED]

So, you're definitively saying that all head shots are completely disabling and there's no further threat? Always? I've seen videos of people being shot multiple times and still fighting back. Cops shoot people all the time in less threatening situations. Aren't they citizens, too. Are we second class and not entitled to protect ourselves and homes? The killing shot, from my understanding, was when one of the teens was laying flat and motionless, where he went and put the gun under their chin and pulled the trigger. That's the ONLY problem I see here.

Are you at all familiar with the facts of this incident?
The guy held a kid at gunpoint, on his knees, in the basement, and then shot him in the head.
This is not 'a hill to die on' for advocates of self defense, or defense of one's dwelling with deadly force.
Instead of putting words in my mouth, and posting irrelevant hyperbole, simply answer my questions:

"How do you justify shooting someone who is on thier knees, with a headshot from a rifle, and at the same time not justify "...the kill shot..."?
Do you consider this a self defense shooting?"

[Randygmn]

So, you're definitively saying that all head shots are completely disabling and there's no further threat? Always? I've seen videos of people being shot multiple times and still fighting back. Cops shoot people all the time in less threatening situations. Aren't they citizens, too. Are we second class and not entitled to protect ourselves and homes? The killing shot, from my understanding, was when one of the teens was laying flat and motionless, where he went and put the gun under their chin and pulled the trigger. That's the ONLY problem I see here.

Are you at all familiar with the facts of this incident?
The guy held a kid at gunpoint, on his knees, in the basement, and then shot him in the head.
This is not 'a hill to die on' for advocates of self defense, or defense of one's dwelling with deadly force.
Instead of putting words in my mouth, and posting irrelevant hyperbole, simply answer my questions:

"How do you justify shooting someone who is on thier knees, with a headshot from a rifle, and at the same time not justify "...the kill shot..."?
Do you consider this a self defense shooting?"

I see no reason to go back and forth on something we don't agree on. IMO, it is perfectly justifiable to use any means necessary to stop a threat (as defined by their mere presence) in my home. I understand the law in Minnesota is different. Since I'm a law abiding person, I follow the laws in whichever jurisdiction I find myself in.

I would like to see powerful syg and castle laws in Minnesota which would force the state to prove a shooting wasn't self defense in order for their to be a prosecution.

[crbutler]

You missed the point.

The case in Minnesota was a guy who shot the intruders, sat a bit then "put them out of their misery" with a coup de grace head shot, sat around and called a lawyer to tell the cops a day later.

They were already incapacitated by being shot.

And the guy had the whole event on tape.

It might have gone differently except for all the evidence of cold blooded execution.

[yukonjasper]

WeIl i think that is a poor example. Obviously the execution of the already incapacitated intruders takes the concept of home defense too far. Indefensible. Not rendering aid is one thing, but execution is really stepping into the world of dimented reality. IMO the logic would have to be that upon entering a private property illegally, you cease to have legal or human rights. I don't think many sane people would believe that. If that were the case Jeffrey Dahmer would only have had to to prove the young men he defiled broke in or refused to leave when asked thus rendering them illegally on his premises to do as he pleases. Some leap.

[fjrdc]

Isn't that considered baiting in MN....................

Or being a "willing participant "......

Forgot his name, but there was the old man a few years ago who did a similar thing and shot those 2 teenagers he sat and waited for. He got a hefty prison sentence after executing them. I'm not entirely sure what he did was even wrong, considering in some states what he did was 100% justifiable. Minnesota, not so much.

Would't do it just for that precident........

[BigBlue]

A bit more perspective on that situation...

Minnesota intruder trial - what the jury DIDN'T hear

[mrp]

Meshbesher it trying to get Byron Smith a new trial.

http://www.brainerddispatch.com/news/42 ... dges-hands