NC sen. shoots intruder who is in fair condition

[Israfel4]

NC sen. shoots intruder who is in fair condition
August 24, 2009 By The Associated Press

TABOR CITY, N.C. (AP) — A sheriff says a North Carolina state senator shot one of two intruders at his home and hospital officials say the man is in fair condition.

Multiple media outlets reported that Columbus County Sheriff Chris Batten said that 74-year-old Sen. R.C. Soles of Tabor City shot Kyle Blackburn late Sunday afternoon.

A spokeswoman at Loris Community Hospital in South Carolina said Monday that Blackburn was in fair condition.

Batten says the shooting occurred when two men went to the senator's house and tried to kick in his front door. No charges have been filed.

The sheriff's office said the State Bureau of Investigation was handling the case. A call to an agency spokeswoman was not immediately returned. There was no answer at a number listed for Soles' home.

The Democrat has been in the Senate 32 years.

http://www.newsday.com/nc-sen-shoots-intruder-who-is-in-fair-condition-1.1389511




Apologies if already posted.

Good shoot for the Sen. :D

[vadawg]

1. he needs to get more practise at the range, n/t

[DrDan]

7. you would have preferred he killed the intruder?

[vadawg]

13. not particularly, but if someone is breaking down your door and you use a firearm

you better sure as hell be trying to kill the intruder, so the senator needs some more range time to make sure that if it ever happens again his shot placement is better..

[paulsby]

53. as a firearms instructor , ... that's kind of silly

no amount of range preparation means you are necessarily going to punch the 10 ring on a real person? ever been in a shooting? i have. it's not like the range. the fact is, he HIT the guy and averted the crime. iow, it was a successful shoot. good for this senator.

[Tim01]

14. Most really dangerous criminals are that way for life. Your house might be next.

Actual studies show that there aren't that many really dangerous badguys.But each of them are responsible for LOTS of violence against innocents. They are violent dangerous people who almost never change.

Yes, I would prefer he is dead. No question.

I don't think I have ever broken to a persons house in my life. Would you try to kick in some bodys door? Of course not. While they are home? No way. This is a different kind of person we are talking about.

[DrDan]

17. well - I am thankful we live in a country where the majority disagree

I would hate to think that breaking and entering would be a capital offense in any state.

[Tim01]

21. I don't exactly dissagree with you.

But if a criminal is killed while he is in the act of kicking in the door to someones house, I see it as a probable net gain for society in general.
Sort of like if a drunk, habitual drunk driver, with a suspended licenses, crashes his car and kills himself, no tears from me. It is probably just a matter of time until he hurts or kills an innocent. Possibly even somebody I care about.

But I am not suggesting we should be able to execute people for being in our house.

[DrDan]

26. I know - but . . . I think it is a dangerous precedent to allow

citizens to take the law into their own hands - particularly when a life is at stake. PARTICULARLY in killing someone where a capital offense has not been commited.

What happens when a neighbor runs next door and begins to violently bang on someone's door because of an emergency. If shot and perhaps killed, is the mistake forgiven?

I know we are dealing with conjecture, but where do we draw the line?

As to the drunk - he killed himself. That is different than someone else being allowed the decision that death is warranted.

[Statistical]

32. Death isn't the intent

The intent is to stop a crime in progress.

Once the crime is stopped the legal use of lethal force goes away also.

The criminal survived the encounter. It is probably the victim had the opertunity to "execute him" by following him and killing when he collapsed from his wounds. He didn't that sort of "judge jury and executioner" fantasy only exists in your minds.

Most victims would rather choose to NOT BE a victim to begin with. Given the choice they would wish the burglar picked another home or had never become a criminal. Lethal force currently is the most effective method to immediately stop the threat.

If hypothetically someday we developed a weapon that could 100% of the time stop a violent crime (say a blackout gun), couldn't be blocked by the criminal, and was just as effective as a firearm I would have no problem with self defense statutes requiring the MORE EFFECTIVE non-lethal technology.

However that day hasn't arrived yet and today a firearm is the most effective way to delivery sufficient force to stop a threat instantly without substantial increase in risk to the victim.

The intent of lethal force is to stop the attack however firearms are a crude application of force and sometimes (although less often then you would think) it is not possible to deliver enough force to stop but not kill.

[Tim01]

34. Well, in most places that allow lethal force,

there are guidelines. Like where I live. In order to shoot somebody you first have to try to retreat. If you are in your own house the law sees it as you have retreated as far as you can. The badguy has to have ability and intent. If you shoot through a door, you are in trouble, lots of trouble. If you shoot an unarmed person in your house you stand a good chance of being in lots of trouble.
Basically if they can hurt you badly(superior numbers or weapons, and access), and seem to be trying to do just that, you have no restrictions on what you do to try not to end up dead.

I think it's fair. And if a violent criminal who enjoys hurting people ends up dead in the process, I'm good with that.


I think Texas is the only state in the union you can shoot people just for being on your property at night messing with your stuff.

But lots of places you can be in a lot of trouble just for trying to stay alive, with force.

[DrDan]

38. what you describe sounds like the analysis we need to show a shooting is warranted

[paulsby]

58. what jurisdiction are you in

that says you first HAVE to try to retreat. i've been a cop in 3 states, all of which are pretty liberal politically and none of them have such a law. what state?

[Tim01]

67. Virginia. nt

[paulsby]

68. wow

didn't know that. not only does WA state not have a duty to retreat, but the burden is on the govt. to DISPROVE self defense, which offers excellent protection in such shootings

[Tim01]

69. We have a huge population density in the cities up against D.C.

Sometimes our laws are effected by all those voters who vote as though they are inside the D.C. city limits.

We frequently have problems with those city areas trying to pass laws that are in direct conflict with state laws.

[paulsby]

70. that sux

WE are next to canada, but i don't think they have much effect on our gun laws :)

our state constitution is pretty explicit about gun rights.

[Statistical]

72. You got a cite Tim? VA case law indicates duty to retreat not required.

However VA statutes are weak on this rather than being explict they rely on case law which can be ambiguous and interpretative.

Appellant next contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. We disagree.
...

"Self-defense is an affirmative defense which the accused must prove by introducing sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt." Smith v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 68, 71, 435 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1993) (citing McGhee v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 560, 562, 248 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978); Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 971, 979, 234 S.E.2d 286, 292 (1977)). " person assaulted while in the discharge of a lawful act, and reasonably apprehending that his assailant will do him bodily harm, has the right to repel the assault by all the force he deems necessary, and is not compelled to retreat from his assailant, but may, in turn, become the assailant, inflicting bodily wounds until his person is out of danger." Dodson v. Commonwealth, 159 Va. 976, 979, 167 S.E. 260, 260 (1933) (quoting Jackson's Case, 96 Va. 107, 30 S.E. 452 (1898))."

See Also : Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 466, 473, 506 S.E.2d 543, 546 (1998).

The full opinion in Decarlos Coleman v. Commonwealth of VA is here:
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/1654012.pdf

The main problem in VA is not so much the intent but the reliance on case law rather than legislative statute which makes the issue confusing.

I would be interested in seeing any cites (either statute or case law) that indicates a requirement to retreat.

[Tim01]

90. Nope, no cites.

I know it has been argued back and forth for a number of years. And I lost track of what was the current word was. Last I heard it was retreat was required, but that was a while back.

When I myself looked up Va knife laws I came to the conclusion that anything at all was possible. And reality was probably more about how the prosecutor painted your intent, and if the D.A. just felt like hanging your ass.

I have a friend who was a cop. While off duty he got into a scuffle with a dirtbag. He was armed with a few weapons, dirt bag had a knife. Dirtbag got his knife taken away from him and his arm messed up a bit. They did their best to hang the cop for messing up the dirtbags arm.

And my friend down the street spent a month in jail for pounding on a redneck who pointed a loaded deer rifle at my friend in my friends front yard.
Judge said that one punch was self defense, the rest was assault.

So, it is a crap shoot as far as I can tell.

[Statistical]

93. I agree with you that it is unclear....

VA has not done a good job of passing laws that protect the victim (aka Castle Doctrine) however I think it is only a matter of time.

There are lots of newer case law cites on no need to retreat specifically in your home so I feel confident about not having to expose myself to further danger in the home.

Outside the home well that gets more complicated. In rural VA they likely will give you a medal, in Hampton roads you might be looking at charges but I doubt a jury would convict. Richmond + Northern VA are almost another state when it comes to gun rights.

[paulsby]

94. i realize thats kind of anecdotal and i don't have all da facts

on the cases you mention, but i can tell you that this kind of stuff simply does NOT happen in WA.

it's just a very good state when it comes to respecting self-defense. i know nothing about VA politics, so i have no idea why your law is at it is

[paulsby]

57. the line is easy to draw

you kick in somebody's door and you don't have a police uniform on and some flashy lights. you may get shot. it's not a "capital offense" thang because the guy isn't using the firearm as PUNISHMENT (as in capital crimes),. but as DEFENSE. even if the effect is the same, the reasons are totally different.

[cliffordu]

52. You might want to look up the stats on what happens to most folks during

a home invasion (kicking the door) robbery.

That wasn's simple breaking and entering...

Or were they just going to kill a liberal???

Too bad he didn't kill both of those fuckers.

I'm glad my family's safety and lives are not in your hands.

I feel sorry for yours.

[DrDan]

78. no one is asking anything of you - particularly not your concern for

the safety of my family.

Get off your high-horse.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. Who has proposed making it a capital offense?

[DrDan]

92. no one proposed it

[Statistical]

22. Hey Tim I have found this to be a good resource.

http://books.google.com/books?id=qPPawkX5dNAC&lpg=PA55&ots=hd2WXFzMN4&dq='Combating%20Violent%20Crime%3A%2024%20%20Recommendations%20to%20Strengthen%20Criminal%20Justice'%2C&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

A little dated but it is from the DOJ - Attorney Generals Office.

Lots of good statistical information (and that is my name after all)

Like this
A study of pretrial release in 75 of the nations' most populous counties in 1988 found that 18% of released defendants were known to have been rearrested for the commission of a felony while on pretrial release. - pg 2

Or this gem
It is no mystery why this is the case. Again and again, studies have indicated that a relatively small portion of the population is responsible for a large percentage of the criminal violence in this country. One California study found that 3.8% of a group of males born in 1956 were responsible for 55.5% of all serious felonies committed by the study group. A Philadelphia cohort study conducted by Professor Marvin Wolfgang of UPenn found that about 7% of males in two birth cohorts (1945 and 1958) accounted for over 2/3 of all violent crimes commited by each group <6>. - pg 6

Preventing 4% of the population from committing violent crime permanently (by lawful lethal force, lifetime incarceration, or death penalty) would reduce the violent crime rate by half. Just ponder on that staggering statistic. Half of all crime is commited by a small minority of the population (2% to 5% depending on the study). The damage both economic and social they cause is much larger than most people would imagine by their relatively small numbers.

Similarly, one study by the BATF of a group of career criminals found that each had committed an average of 160 crimes per year <21>. A 1982 Rand Corp study found that 24% of inmates surveyed admitted to having committed more than 135 crimes a year apiece, and about 10% claimed responsibility for over 600 crimes per year <22>."

The are the facts most are not willing to admit. Roughly 4% of the population (12 million people) are undeserving of living in a free society, they show this by their continual disregard for the law. This isn't the bad kid who makes one or two mistakes but rather career criminal for who robbery or home invasion is an occupation. Just like you and I go to work everyday so do these people. Some commit as many as 100 violent offenses per year. Once someone has the technical and mental apptitude to violently break the law 100+ times the likelyhood they will rejoin society is negligble.

Everything in life in a compromise and currently we are valuing the neglible chance of rehabilitation of this 4% against the massive damage (say 100 violent offenses per year * 40 years = 4,000 victims per career criminal lifetime) to society. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many.

[DrDan]

28. so in this case, no need for a trial

just let the citizen act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Not exactly the kind of place I want to live.

[Statistical]

30. No there is a difference between lethal force and an execution.

In lethal force the INTENT to stop the crime in progress. Had the criminal been lying on the floor bleeding and unable to stand and the Senator walked over put the pistol to his head and pulled the trigger THAT would have been "judge, jury, and executioner" and it would be a crime. I would strongly push for anyone in a situation like that to be tried for homicide.

However in a situation where the INTENT is to stop a violent crime and the badguy dies I don't really give a flying crap. I won't shed any tears for him or place any guilt on the victim using lethal force. I weigh his life vs the financial and emotional loss of the thousands of potential victims of the course of his criminal career.

Then again I strong discourage breaking into someones home you might end up dead although it won't be an execution you will still be dead. If you don't want to join a home invasion ring I would recommend Chicago where the handgun ban puts you at a competitive advantage compared to your victims.

[DrDan]

36. the problem of course is one of who should be allowed to decide

Can everyone make a rational judgement of the amount of force to use to stop a crime?

Road rage. Is a road rage shooting justified? You could argue that a violent "crime" may have been commited as perhaps others live's were put in jeopardy because of unsafe driving. But is a shooting warranted even if it stops the other driver and removes the risk of injury to others if he was not "put down"?

[Statistical]

40. You could argue that but your would be wrong.

In the case of road rage you can simply drive away without additional risk to yourself.

No court in the country will allow you to use lethal self defense to protect yourself from road rage.

Now if you attempt to drive away and stop in a public area and the aggressor follows you, gets out of the car and escalates the situation to assault then lethal force becomes a viable method to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm.

[DrDan]

48. "no court in the country . . . "

so there is a line in the sand somewhere.

Roadrage - no defense in it's use.
Breaking and entering - defensible.

So the argument for road rage is that you have an option - drive away.

Didn't this guy in the OP have an option? Did he retreat to a back room? Did he shout a warning? Did he fire a warning shot?

[Statistical]

50. Warning shots are lethal force.

If you fire a warning shot then you must be legally allowed to use lethal force. The law sees no difference between a warning shot and a shot center mass.

The courts also see a home invasion as a type of crime that can escalate rapidly.

Could the guy in the OP retreat? Maybe. Is it likely 2 young athletic guys can advance faster than a 74 year old man can retreat?
Are there other people in the house? Are they in location where him retreating exposes them to danger?

A law abiding citizen shouldn't be required to increase risk to themselves to avoid risk of injury or death for the law abiding.
If you can't understand or agree with that sentence the laws on self defense likely will never make sense.

If I violate your rights by breaking into your home and putting your family at risk you shouldn't have to take any action other than what will immediately end the threat. If you choose to take another action then that is fine. If you choose to fire a warning shots when lethal force is authorized that is fine (although warning shots are generally speaking a HORRIBLE idea). If you choose to retreat to de-esclate the situation that is fine. Requiring the citizen (under penalty of law) do all of the above and increase risk to him/herself in order to improve the safety of the criminal is tyranny.

I am only generally speaking because all self defense statutes are state law and vary considerably

NC for example (specifically defense of home)

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-51.1.html

§ 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

[Tim01]

47. If people are not allowed to decide, then they are captive victims.

There is a balance. We try to give good average people enough of a fighting chance to survive an encounter with the monsters who DO exist in our society. Humans are not perfect, especially when they are terrified.
But really, most people are basically good, or at least not evil. And most of the time the monsters show themselves for what they are.


Just like when our soldiers over seas get pissed at each other. They throw the guns to the floor and pound on each other.

The monsters are the soldiers who conspired and carried out, raping a civilian girl and murdering her whole family, for entertainment.
I'm sure you see the difference. And I think you probably really do understand that most people are not murderers, even if some of them are hot heads.


Road rage. I66 just outside of D.C. Car #1 cut off car #2 in heavy slow traffic. Driver of car #2 got out and kicked in the fender of car #1. Driver of car #1 got out and opened his trunk and retrieved a bumper jack. Which he swung baseball bat style into the windshield of car #2, smashing it.
Nobody even got hurt.

[DrDan]

49. I completely agree most are basically good and act rationally

But the laws are on the books not for us - but for that small percentage that are on the other side.

Stop signs adn related laws are not for those of us that occasionally cruise through after looking both ways to make sure everyone is safe. They are there for those that put others at risk without concern for their safety.

The road rage incident you describe - what if the final step was that the jack was swung baseball bat style and accidently flew from his hand and hit someone. Or the windshield was broken but someone was inside the car and injured from the glass.

We can dream up these various scenarios all afternoon. But the point is that I disagree that we get to decide. I cannot decide that I looked both ways at a stop sign and decided it was safe to continue without stopping. The law says I need to stop. The law does not say you and I can settle a road rage dispute by kicking in fenders and swinging bumper jacks. We cannot do that.

The guy in the OP cannot say he was threatened with someone kicking in his door and decide to end the life without other actions being taken first.

[Tim01]

54. Ok, I understand your point of view. I think I dissagree.

I think a person in their own house has the right to do what ever they have to if an intruder has intentionally kicked in the door to get at you.
The firing of the gun was to get the intruders to stop advancing after they had smashed in the door. The fact that one of them was killed was incidental.
If he could have slammed a bigger steel door instead of shooting somebody, he probably would have. But his options all gone.

The situation also would have been different if he shot the guy until he went down, then shot him in the head a couple of times after he was already on the floor dieing.

I don't think you and I disagree that very much. Some, but not a lot.

[Statistical]

55. Well yes he can.

You go on and on explaining the law determines what one can or can not do then make a blanket statement like

The guy in the OP cannot say he was threatened with someone kicking in his door and decide to end the life without other actions being taken first.

The law determines that the guy "can or cannot do".

§ 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

[paulsby]

60. we are citizens not subjects

we get to decide at the time, because WE are the one being faced with a threat. a cop can then decide after the fact to make an arrest if it was clear you didn't act in self defense, a prosecutor/grand jury can decide there is sufficient PC to prosecute, and a jury can decide you in fact committed a crime. those are all expost facto.

we don't have the luxury of having those people next to us to give us advice at the time of the shoot, nor are they going to be the ones killed if the burglar has such an intent. thus, the power rests with the individual citizen. that's the way it works in a free society. you have the power to choose deadly force and you pay the consequences if you are wrong.

[Mystayya]

64. So if two men kicked in your door, when would you act?

Would you wait for them to harm your family first? what if it's to late then? There is no one else there to make the judgement. What would you do?

[DrDan]

71. of course not -

but I don't think my first action would be to shoot first. At least I hope not. Call 911. Move to a back room. Warning shot.

I would hope shooting would be my last option.

But who knows - perhaps I would start blasting away. Hard to tell until it really happens.

[Statistical]

75. Exactly.

If you did start blasting because someone else illegally entered your home and created a risk of death or bodily injury to yourself or others then the law should protect your actions.

Nobody is saying that you can't retreat, call 911 (I would strongly strongly strongly discourage warning shots). Depending on the situation those may be good ideas. However depending on the situation you may not have time to do so. Most likely attempting to retreat may exposes you to greater risk and 911 will result in cops arriving in 10-15 minutes which is useful for catching the perps but not stopping the crime.

If you shot first out of a "reasonable fear of death or bodily injury" your actions should not be held against you. You should not be required to take additional risks to yourself or others to reduce the risk of injury to the criminals.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. Are you trying to be dense?

[texasleo]

46. I would have loved it.

[Rebubula]

77. Yes

Without question.

The state should not sanction murder for breaking and entering, but a homeowner has a right to put ANYONE down that comes in with bad intent.

You enter my house after hours and you will see the damage a 12 gauge Mossberg 500 can do. I will feel horrible later - but I will not regret anything.

[Renew Deal]

2. That's the risk you take when you try to bust down someones door.

:hide:

[Tim01]

3. He should have talked to them, or called the police. nt

[Xenotime]

6. THis will get all over the gun nut forums..

They will eat this up.

[Tim01]

9. I was just being ridiculous.

He would probably have been talking to them and calling the police while they kicked him into a coma.

[Obamanaut]

29. My bad! I responded already to the other post. I agree with this nt

[cwydro]

20. Lol!

Yes, perhaps some cookies or tea and sympathy...

[Tim01]

24. It's the most misunderstood people who kill you in your own house. nt

[Obamanaut]

27. People kicking in my door, and I'm gonna talk to them? I don't think

so! What would I say, something like "I truly believe your behavior is not appropriate and you should cease and desist!"

I don't think so.

[cwydro]

41. I think he was being sarcastic.

And figured the smilie was not necessary.

[Obamanaut]

43. Yes. See my post (#29) slightly above this one. nt

[cwydro]

44. Got it. Sorry.

I was reading too fast and skimmed on by!

[Obamanaut]

45. No need to apologize. Skimming is how I missed the other one. nt

[cliffordu]

56. GOT THE JOKE....hah aha hah ah a

[Mystayya]

65. They clearly didn't want to talk they kicked in the door.

The police would have taken precious time to get there.


DOH: sorry I didn't get your sarcasm at first *blush*

[gatorboy]

4. If it was a Republican, he probably would have tried to filibuster the intruders.

Just sayin'...

[Xenotime]

5. The gun fundies will use this to fuel their cause..

This is not good for our movement.

[gatorboy]

10. How?

[Tim01]

11. They have a habbit of using the truth to make their point. Bastards. nt

[endarkenment]

15. "They have a habbit of using the truth to make their point."

Actually most of them use a hobbit as their spokesperson. Frodo is always available. Lifetime NRA member.

[Tim01]

16. Nope, not interested in excnanging baseless insults. Try someone else. nt

[ashling]

33. It wsn't really an insult - just a humorous remark about your typo

and was therefore not at all baseless ... also, I'm sure the poster wasn't trying to "excnang" anything.

:eyes: <-- note smiley :rofl: oh, there's another one. :)

[endarkenment]

37. I think I might have been excnang, but I am not sure.

[paulsby]

62. which movement is that

the "disarm the citizen lawfully defending his home with a firearm" movement? fuck that movement.

[PVnRT]

76. "our movement"?

Who is the "us" here?

Please don't pretend that the anti-gun fundies don't use every single gun accident or shooting to advance their cause.

[Renew Deal]

81. Whose movement?

You must be at DU very long. DU is a very pro-gun site.

[proteus_lives]

85. Please explain how a person shooting two intruders is a bad thing.

Would you rather the Senator had allowed himself to be robbed, beaten or even killed?

"This is not good for our movement."

Self-defense and gun-rights are liberal values. Real Democrats support RKBA!

[Statistical]

8. That is one lifetime strong RKBA vote in the Senate.

Seriously though glad him and his family is safe.

However I am confused don't the gun grabbers always claim a firearm is useless because the thug will just take it from you and use it against you? Guess these 2 didn't get the memo.

Without a firearm what are the odds a 74 year old man could defend his home and his family against not one but two younger intruders?

On edit: Looks like he is a Senator in the North Carolina legislature (state level) not a North Caroline federal senator.

[Vidar]

12. Good.

[kentuck]

18. Life's a crap shoot...

Sometimes you can kick the door down and go in and beat the hell out of a couple of old people and rob them and sometimes...they shoot your sorry ass.

[WonderGrunion]

19. I'm pretty anti-gun

But I don't have an issue with this.

[Pool Hall Ace]

23. I'm pretty much anti-gun, too.

But this doesn't bother me.

My eSTRANGEd husband has threatened to kill me, and he does have a firearm. I have an order of protection against him, but he is an arrogant alcoholic, so who's to say that would stop him?

I wonder sometimes if I should try and purchase a gun, but how much training would I need in order to use it properly? I certainly don't want to wind up shooting myself or my dog.

[FarCenter]

31. If you are not going to carry it, a 20 guage pump might be a good choice

Relatively simple to use, and the longer barrel means you are less likely to point it at something you don't want to shoot -- and more likely to hit something you do want to shoot. Go for a 3 inch magnum shell, with fairly coarse shot that used for ducks and geese or single 0 buckshot.

If you can handle the recoil, go for the 12 guage.

[Statistical]

39. If you do get a firearm training is a MUST.

A firearm is a tool like any other. Please promise yourself that if you decide to get a firearm you also get training.

However firearms are like chess relatively easy to understand the workings but taking a large amount of time to master.

With a firearm safety class and some coached range time (maybe 10 hours total) you can be fairly proficient to hit a man sized target at 10 feet (most self defense encounters are less than 10 ft).

That doesn't make you an expert the only thing that will improve your skills is practice, practice, and practice. However with 10 or so hours of training you should be familiar enough with firearms to understand their function, operation, safety, disassembly, and assembly.

The NRA (safety side of the house not political side of the house) offers very good training and ensures a baseline minimum standard for instructors. They even offer courses only for women by female instructors.

[Obamanaut]

25. There is some grievous inconsistency here. Recently there was

a thread telling us about one of three attacking teenagers being shot while kicking and beating a vendor because he wouldn't give them his products. He was vilified by many, with statements such as "they can change." Link here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x249145

Now, reading the article at the link in the OP, we read that one of the intruders "tried to kick in his front door." The article does not tell us that the intruder entered the dwelling or was beating and kicking the senator, just that he "tried" to kick in the door, and was shot for his efforts.

The OP states "Good shoot for the Senator." While I agree with the good shoot part, I do think it's kinda odd that one shooter whose political party is not known can be vilified while another - a democrat, one who as far as we know was not touched - is congratulated for shooting a person who had not yet even gained entry.

I find nothing wrong with the shooting in either instance, but rather in the inconsistency here. I would suggest that the Senator get in more practice at the range. Better shooting of potential or actual intruders and other vandals will reduce the increasingly overcrowded prison population.



---from the link provided in the OP----
Batten says the shooting occurred when two men went to the senator's house and tried to kick in his front door. No charges have been filed.

The sheriff's office said the State Bureau of Investigation was handling the case. A call to an agency spokeswoman was not immediately returned. There was no answer at a number listed for Soles' home.

The Democrat has been in the Senate 32 years.
---------

[guitar man]

35. if you break in to a house

That just might be the result. The intruder is lucky he's still breathing.

[brendan120678]

42. Well, I guess that is better than...

shooting someone who is in critical condition. That would be just mean.

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. I think it's unfair to shoot someone who is only in fair condition. That's like

kicking a guy when he's down.

[woo me with science]

59. I wish this had been posted twice,

identifying the senator as a Democrat in one post and a Republican in the other.

I wonder how the responses would have differed in the two threads.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

61. This is not just about guns... there is A LOT more to the story

please read www.wwaytv3.com. I've also summarized the highlights of the story, which is top news here in SE NC. It is much more interesting - to say the least - than the article above.

[Orsino]

63. I predict a huge and tawdry story is about to emerge.

...based on the allegations and coincidences abounding in WWAY's coverage of the senator's entanglements: http://www.wwaytv3.com/news_tags/sen_rc_soles_0

[Blue Diadem]

82. I think your prediction is correct. That's quite a list at the link. n/t

[Mugu]

79. It looks like this story could get much more interesting. n/t

[joeybee12]

86. So, it's NOT a story about how having a gun protects you!

It's about how you use it on someone when a business deal goes bad and then you lie about it!

[ConnorMarc]

66. Very Interesting Thread

This story reminds me of that Texan that shot and killed a couple of Mexicans that were stealing from his next door neighbor's house AFTER the 9.11 attendant told the guy not to do anything and that police were on the way.

The man dropped the phone on her and gunned down the Mexicans.

Shortly after, he was on FOX and Hannity was praising him as a hero.

Earlier this year the case was tried and he got off Scott- Free.

Gotta love the Wild, Wild, Westness of Texas huh?

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Shoot center of mass, shoot center of mass, shoot center of mass

unfortunately that may come to haunt him. Yes people have been sued.

[SoCalDem]

74. "...tried to kick in his front door..." were they outside?

Did the showing of the gun, not "convince" them to "go away"?

I guess if you have a gun, you gotta use it, eh?

[Mugu]

83. Once they step over the threshold of an occupied dwelling

the time for conversation and show & tell is over.

[joeybee12]

80. Pretty short article...probably more to the story than this...

...and we'll probably never hear about it.

[proteus_lives]

84. Good for Sen. Soles.

He defended himself and his home.

[joeybee12]

87. Hey, click on some of the other posts...another anecdote about guns

protecting people proven wrong...some fishy relationship between the senator and the alleged intruder.

[ddeclue]

91. To the Gundgeon with ye!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. Whhaaaa.