I hear an accusation in your voice, and I don't think you're being entirely fair here. I think that, realistically, most people would say, "it depends on what happens next," and that is an entirely rational answer. I'm coming up on 61 years old and have a fragile spine. I'm not bum-rushing anybody unless it's really a life-or-death situation and I don't have a gun in my hand. In such a situation as this homeowner, first of all, I would likely stay in the home and protect my family and call 911. Work can wait. There is no employer in the world worth the life of my wife and kids. Not one. Secondly, if circumstances forced me to exit the home to confront the intruder, he would be confronted at gun-point. What happens to him after that is entirely in his hands. He will be commanded in no uncertain terms to cease and desist, and to get proned out. If he bum-rushes me, he will get shot......how bad depends on whether he stops or not after being shot the first time. But all of that rests on the head of the person who A) illegally entered your property, B) refused to submit to a command to desist and get down, and C) initiated an assault against you.cb1000rider wrote:What is it that I'm saying here that I wouldn't want used it court? Can't think of anything. Use it. Use all of it. Please use it!rotor wrote:What you should also realize is that anything you post here will be used in a court case, probably against you.
If you're concerned about it, ask the site owner to stop allowing Google crawls. The content can be made much less searchable.
I read this today... I wonder how many people would have just shot this guy:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... s-planned/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But the point is that there's a lot of leeway there along what is truthfully a response continuum which permits a lot of different ethical responses depending on the situation. And, about 99% of the time there is no good tactical reason to leave the house. And in those rare cases where there is a good tactical reason.....like let's say that a gang had set a fire to force you out of the house....then whatever you do to them is on their shoulders, and it would be wrong to make some kind of moral equivalency argument implying that the property owner is somehow ethically challenged. That's more of a tactic of the left.