TexasCHLforum.com

alphonso wrote:
Yes, I'm assuming the homeonwer has done nothing wrong. That's how we do it in America...

I'm not on the jury so I don't have to give him the presumption of innocence, even though he clearly is if we look at the Castle Doctrine alone. I'm just questioning why someone would "randomly" kick in someone's door when the person is home and the perpetrator is armed with an AR15. That's not exactly a typical driving around gun for riff raff. It's conspicuous, expensive, large, more difficult to operate (relative to a handgun), probably a good degree louder over all.

alphonso wrote:

thedeceiver wrote:Wonder what the homeowner was up to.... Common criminals don't generally break into homes with assault rifles.

I find the post above kind of frightening.

If, God forbid, someone broke into my house in the middle of the night and I had to shoot them the last thing I would need would be an arm-chair stranger who knows not a single thing about me or the details of the incident to "assume" that I was some sort of bad guy who had it coming.

Wow!

I'm certainly not saying the homeowner had it coming... I'm not really sure anyone "deserves" to be shot, I was simply noting the fact that the use of an AR-15 for a run of the mill home invasion seems like overkill.

You're also assuming the homeowner has done nothing wrong and that he was just a victim of a "random" home invasion. My point was not that his home was invaded, nor that a gun was used, but to bring an assault rifle? Someone was planning on the person being home and being armed. That's hardly random.

I

Wonder what the homeowner was up to.... Common criminals don't generally break into homes with assault rifles.