Quantcast

Family of Terrorist Teens Say They “Didn’t Deserve to Be Shot”

Jan Morgan
 

About the author: Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative. She is closely aligned with the Republican/ ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 1.39.22 PM

Two teens, 14 and 16 years old… who broke in to an elderly womans home on more than one occasion, were finally shot in the process of burglarizing her home a second time, yet… their family and friends say they should not have been shot.

Amazing.

What do you suppose the family and friends think the elderly couple should do when their lives are being threatened by several people who are breaking in to their home?

Family and friends of the two teenage boys (who were shot and killed inside a home they had broken into) are speaking out.

“They didn’t deserve to get killed,” said the sister of 14-year-old Michael Sambrano.

He and his 16-year-old best friend were shot and killed on Sunday morning by someone inside a home the teens were breaking into. Police won’t say whether it was the elderly homeowner or her brother who shot and killed the teens who had just broken into their home.

“They were on their way out the door, and I just think it was wrong that they were shot,” said Christina Sambrano.

But many who live on Arcade Boulevard say the neighbor did the right thing.

“Justice was served,” said Robert Robinson.

The widow in the home had been burgled twice before, and the news article states that fingerprints from one of the deceased burglars was matched to one of the previous break-ins. They were killed as they terrorized an elderly woman, yet again.

The fact that they were shot is not the issue… This was a clear cut case of justifiable use of lethal force. Period.

What the family and friends SHOULD be saying is how sorry they are that these to punks were committing crimes against innocent citizens and that it is NOT okay to steal from others and that these shooting could have been prevented if the thugs were not breaking the law.

Those two teens made the conscious decision to become criminals. They made the conscious decision to endanger and terrorize the lives of law-abiding citizens by breaking into occupied dwellings. Their families should be apologizing to the REAL victims, the homeowners, and telling the public they harbor no ill will toward thenm for simply defending their lives.

The elderly brother and sister inside the home had reason to fear that these two home invaders were a threat to their lives. They had a legitimate right to self-defense that includes the right to use deadly force.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • susan5042

    We’re fighting back more and more, yet the dumbasses don’t learn. They should assume we’re armed from here on in!

    • Sardis

      I wonder how this would have gone if the woman who was burgled did not have a gun. Most likely, the two teenage boys would have stolen some things while she locked herself in a bedroom and called the police. Then the boys would have been caught and prosecuted. Being only 14 and 16 respectively, they had plenty of time to turn their lives around.

      Why would anyone applaud their being shot?

      • Lili

        They should have turned their lives around before deciding to commit “again” the burglary!!!!!!!

      • James C

        obviously you failed to read the article correctly, one of teens finger prints were matched to previously burglary of this poor lady, and you think that it they would have turned their lives around, they already did it twice before, this was the 3rd time to break in and terrorize this elderly woman they did not learn their lesson the first 2 times but the dang sure learned a lesson the 3rd time

        • tamaboy1

          Well with all due respect….i mean what lesson? the werent caught and never got in trouble so really the only lesson was….well none. But i see your point though. just sayin

      • finishstrongdoc

        If you look at it that way, sure, those boys were just looking to do a little more crime and then quit, turn their lives around, and become model citizens. Except they broke the law and if caught and convicted, they’d do time for that. If not caught, even if they turned their lives around, they’d still have those burglaries on their consciences. Just because they don’t get caught doesn’t mean they don’t owe it to those people to somehow make it right to them. THEY COULD TURN THEMSELVES IN AND FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

      • WitchWay

        @Sardis – REALLY? I have known teens that were also armed to the teeth. Why would any person choose to be a victim inside their own home? Don’t try breaking and entering where I live – you won’t make it out alive. I will never again be a victim.

        • ArmySFC2018

          Hell yeah, same at my house. You’ll get shot if you break into my house. Hell I live on a military base all my neighbors are armed, I dare someone break into our houses. We are authorized weapons in housing on our base.

          • Sardis

            It’s interesting to see how excited you are at the prospect of getting to use your gun on a hypothetical burglar, in a place where I’m guessing the likelihood of that sort of crime taking place is virtually nonexistent. This fetishization of guns and their supposed value for protecting our freedom and security is way out of touch with reality, and it’s gotten out of hand in this country,

          • DevilDog1994

            Obviously Sardis, you have no understanding of weapons and the purpose they serve for not only protecting individual citizens but the use in law enforcement and the military for protecting our country. Since Sardis, you seem to believe guns only have a supposed value for protecting our freedom I suggest you walk into a hot lz unarmed and let us know how that works out for you. We have a right protected by the constitution to keep and bear arms for our protection. If you don’t like living in a country where people have a right to legal own fire arms no one said you have to stay, you’re more than welcome to go to another country.

          • Sardis

            The military’s and law enforcement’s need for firearms is obvious and understandable (though I’m not sure I support the militarization of some police forces). I don’t advocate a universal gun ban for private citizens, either, or repealing the 2nd Amendment, or anything like that. I do take issue with the way certain people in this country fetishize weapons and act as though they’re somehow vital and noble. It’s a cultural disease that will hopefully die out with time. Disagreeing is one thing, but how on earth is it ok for gun-lovers to demonize activists supporting reasonable policies that would protect human life?

          • paratrooper_us

            I do not think people fetishizes on the possibility of shooting someone – We are tired of people thinking they can take advantage of innocent people, and live in reality and know that Law Enforcement will not get there in time, should the criminal be armed. We are just prepared to take self-responsibility for our personal protection. After all, we are not like the politicians that want to do away with the 2nd Amendment and have personal 24 hour ARMED protection.

            Now – if the President and all of the other politicians want to do away with their personal armed guards, then I will think about relinquishing my protection. After all, their claim is “Call the police”, so they can show us how much they believe in law enforcement first.

          • Sardis

            This is a silly argument. Important people tend to be the targets of assassination attempts. Private citizens, much less so. I’d warrant the President and other politicians have a much greater need for “personal armed guards” than you or I.

            A study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that that “Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home…Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” Tell us more about about how guns make you safer.

          • paratrooper_us

            How is it a silly argument? They claim that LEOs can protect you, that is the reason for stronger gun control – then they need to walk the walk.

            Guns have made a close friend of my wife’s safer. I used my gun to protect her (while she was staying at our home for protection) and hold her abusive boyfriend at gunpoint for more than 15 minutes waiting for the police to arrive. When they searched his vehicle, they found a gun and a suicide note – his intentions were to kill her, and then himself.

            Also – a study that was published showed that when an attempted mass shooter is confronted by an armed citizen or off-duty police officer there are an average of 2.4 killed. When a mass shooter is confronted by LEOs, the average is greater than 14 killed. Why? Because you have to wait at least 5 to 10 minutes for LEOs to arrive.

            I prefer to be armed and take personal responsibility for the protection of me and my loved ones – Thank you.

          • Candyman101

            5 to 10 minutes if there is a Dunkin Donuts close by. Otherwise, an hour at least.

          • brucethompson22

            Look at Ft.Hood’s last shooting, The Base Commander said it took 19 to 15 mins. response rime when it took only 6 mins. to shoot 6 people and kill three and he was stopped on his way off post when a lone female MP stopped him when he shoot himself. Remember, when you have seconds to react, the cops are only 10 mins. away.

          • Hoodoo H

            It is typical truth that the police only arrive for cleanup and reports.
            How does that help anyone at all?
            IT DOESN’T.

          • Phil Bronner

            The police have no responsibility to protect any individual….they are responsible for protecting society at large, by investigating and introducing the cockroaches to the Criminal Justice System… You, and YOU ALONE are responsible for your safety and that of your loved ones….

          • Hoodoo H

            This, I know. Thank you.
            Criminals never learn, until they are shot dead for breaking into someone’s home.

            Make sure you understand what is written, criminals. I and others will not waste a warning shot due to price of ammo, and we have more than sufficient training to make center mass or head shots, giving you a very, very bad day.

          • Phil Bronner

            Warning shots, not only are a waste of ammo, but are inherently dangerous….EVERY round fired needs to be aimed center of mass at a legitimate threat…..you don’t know where a “warning shot” will go, even one fired into the ground, could ricochet….

          • Hoodoo H

            Very true, Phil.

          • Hoodoo H

            Agreed and well said.
            ALL THE WAY, Brother.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            Paratroopers are like that coffee, GOOD TO THE LAST DROP! God bless every one of them.

          • Hoodoo H

            Maxwell House, Sir, and thank you. We are blessed to have Patriots like yourself who appreciate and value Our miltary men and women. Thank you, Sir.
            GOD Bless You.
            Were you AIRBORNE, Sir?

          • Sardis

            I’d be interested to see the study you’re referring to. Isn’t a mass shooter defined by the fact that the shooter shot a “mass” of people? How can you know if the shooter would have been a “mass” shooter if he was stopped? How much data is actually out there to support your claim of greater than 14 average? Are all shootings stopped by cops included your numbers? If a cop stopped a shooter before it became “mass,” would it be counted in the data? Basically, I’m asking you to post a link to your source.

            In regards to your anecdote, I’m glad everything worked out for your wife’s friend. Had the abusive boyfriend entered the house with his gun too, instead of leaving it in the car, I wonder if it would have ended up with one or more people dead or wounded. Seems likely. Not only that, but I’m betting that the boyfriend was able to obtain that gun legally, despite being mentally unstable.

            When I see a private citizen (in a state like Virginia) walking down the street with a sidearm, it’s scary. I don’t assume that this is an armed citizen ready to fight back against bad guys. I don’t know if he *is* a bad guy. This is a person walking around in public who could kill me instantly if he felt like it. There’s something wrong with that.

          • paratrooper_us

            The abusive boyfriend never entered my house. He opened my gate and entered my property, he was stopped at gun point within 100 ft of the gate. The minute my wife’s friend came to us for help, and got a restraining order on the guy, There never was not a gun within my reach 24 hours a day. The only thing a restraining order is good for, is the paper it is written on.

            As I said – “Attempted Mass Shooter” and it was determined by the location they were in (large volume of people), number of rounds assailant had and if still alive (which preferably they are not) an interview.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            If seeing somebody wearing a gun scares you, I’m sorry. It could be a police detective or an off-duty policeman. Regardless, if you had a gun & the training to use it & the mind-set, you wouldn’t need to be afraid at all. Personal responsibility counts.

          • Phil Bronner

            John Lott, in his study of mass shootings has found that since 1950…every mass shooting with the exception of 2….were in “gun free zones”….those need to be renamed: “target-rich free fire zones”….
            And if you think it’s “scary” when you see someone walking down the street with a holstered sidearm….then the problem doesn’t lie with armed, law abiding citizens, or state laws, or the 2nd amendment….I’d look a little closer to home if I were you…and check with your doctor about those unreasonable “scary” feelings….he may be able to help!!

          • Jeanne Stotler

            Agree, regardless if it’s an off duty or plain clothes LEO or a legally armed person, they would be closer than any PD

          • Elliot Denine

            Excuse me for butting in? Just what, exactly, constitutes an important person? Are some us not? I know that no person is any more valuable than the next.

          • Phillip_in_TX

            Very good point!

          • oldmo

            Only liberals like Sardis are important.

          • Steve Pike

            LOL thats too funny

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            You obviously are not a Liberal Democrat!

          • Elliot Denine

            Thanks for noticing.

          • zabs

            Sardis, You really are that stupid. You’ll learn when you lose what rights you have left, and no one will protect you.

          • Sardis

            What rights have I lost, exactly? I haven’t noticed an awful lot of infringement of my civil rights lately, but maybe that’s because I don’t think there should be a semiautomatic issued to every member of every god-fearing heterosexual nuclear family.

          • Chuck

            Sardis, If you were paying attention you’d notice. Your leaders in Washington apparently want to know everything about you, thus violating Constitutional privacy. They are trying to eliminate the 2nd amendment. Private property is at risk, enforced indoctrination in the public school system is rampant. IRS is being used to enforce a despicable law, thus falling well outside of their mandate. The Administration is arming agencies that should not be armed. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. If you haven’t noticed the infringement on your freedoms lately, then it would seem that you are not capable of noticing much of anything.

          • Sardis

            I thought everyone should be armed, per the Second Amendment?

            How is private property at risk? The people who own the most in this country are better off than they’ve been since perhaps the days of the robber barons.

            What’s the enforced indoctrination in the public school system? That global warming exists? That’s science. That evolution is real? Science as well. Politics and science should remain separate.

            The IRS is being used to enforce a despicable law? Are you referring to the business with the IRS targeting certain Tea Party groups for audits? Of course that wasn’t okay, but is it really evidence of a systematic deprivation of your rights? As soon as the scandal broke, the fallout was huge, and the practice was stopped.

            It is true that America on the whole is becoming an increasingly permissive, accepting, and progressive society, and this must be scary to the uneducated cowboys who feel like they’re getting left behind.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            The Second Amendment guarantees everybody the right to keep & bear arms for protection against all invasion, whether foreign or local.
            The courts have decreed that the gov’t can take private property from an individual & give it to a business. Of course, “fair market value”, determined by somebody other than the owner, must be paid to the owner.
            Students have been forced to pray to Allah in Arabic, & the Common Core system is indoctrination.
            Global warming is science, but the CAUSE of it is NOT. The Earth has gone through several world-wide warming & cooling cycles long before man came on the scene. If you’re descended from a monkey, well, I can believe that!
            The IRS is being used to enforce the ACA because the SCOTUS declared it to be a “tax”. The practice of using the IRS to harass political groups should never have been allowed in the first place, but it only happened under a Left-wing(nut), Liberal, Democrat, Black, incompetent, President.
            What’s scary is that ill-educated people are swallowing the bait, hook, line, & sinker, that Liberals are spoon-feeding them & they don’t even realize that they are throwing away their rights. Those who give up freedoms in exchange for security shall have neither.

          • Hilda Orduno

            You almost made sense until uou nentioned Pres Obamas skin color, why not half white pres. would have made you sound believable.

          • Phil Bronner

            LOL…There is no “requirement” for being armed…It’s a right…which YOU personally, can choose to exercise or not…but your 4th amendment rights are violated every time you attempt to fly from an airport…as they are with the massive NSA privacy invasion….and if you are unfortunate enough to be overseas (so far) and an American Citizen who holds views the government deems “terrorist”…then your 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights are violated when you’re taken out with a drone strike (yet, comically enough the usurper-in-chief only wants foreign terrorists arrested and brought to the US for trials…). As to Global Warming….maybe you should check with the latest “scientific” info from Antarctica, since the South Pole isn’t melting, and in April, reached 3.5 million square miles…the largest on record… Evolution is debatable..do species involve? within that species yes….but morphing to something else? not so much…(and it’s the liberals who combine politics and science…carbon credits….LOL how does THAT help “global warming?”)…also our PubiK edjunaKashun Sistum is a sham…children K-12, and beyond are being taught WHAT to think…not HOW…
            Please tell me what fallout occurred with the IRS scandal? Who got fired? Who was prosecuted and went to prison? Who DIDN”T receive a bonus? American isn’t progressing….unless it’s backwards….back to the age of tyrants….controlling every aspect of your life….you want to live like that? then move to North Korea…you’ll love it!

          • Steve Pike

            All I can say is ….SWEET….. love you post

          • Steve Pike

            Stupid liberal logic

          • Hoodoo H

            Mister…forget it w Sardis. If you read his reply when you gave him common sense answers, …he is beyond reach.
            I applaud your attempts to educate him.
            However, he’s just another ObamaTroll to spread disinformation.
            GOD Bless.

          • bjreg3

            It’s that cranial rectal inversion libs like himself suffer from. His is a product of gross ignorance, delusion and fetishes….

          • Hoodoo H

            So true …so true.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            Anybody still wondering why Federal agencies w/no law enforcement authority bought thousands of rounds of ammo?

          • sreynolds

            You are correct, guns shouldn’t be issued to anybody, however my right to own and carry SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED… THe 2nd amendment is a citizens CCW permit and should not be infringed.

          • Aristophanes

            Are you kidding sardis? I am not surprised, though, coming from a liberal. When you lose enough rights for you to notice, it will be too late for you. In a way, I almost envy you. I would love to be able to ignore all the ominous signs from d.c. and believe that everything is alright with my country. Unfortunately, my country that I know and love is being destroyed by socialists and communists (kind of redundant – should probably just say communists). obozo is doing exactly what he has set out to do – destroy what was once a great country, turn it into a communist, third world country. Unfortunately, for him, there are still Americans who are fighting this. Lucky for you.

          • paratrooper_us

            They are not issued, and it is your right to provide protection to you and your loved ones as you choose. Whether it is handling it on your own, or waiting and praying that the LEO get there in time. But they want to take away my right to protect me and my loved ones with a firearm. Ill-informed individuals seem to believe that when they outlaw a firearm, the criminals are going to either turn them in, or register them – do not see that happening.

          • Hoodoo H

            Get a grip dips__t.

          • SILENTHAMMER

            Oh, Sardis…what’s this “heterosexual” reference? Is THAT where you’re coming from? If you are “gay”, you have the right to be “gay.” But you DON’T have the “right” to force your “gayness” on me. In addition, if you DON’T want to have a weapon in your home or in your use, then DON’T. But tell me this. If a person enters your home and beats you, then goes for your “partner” or mother or child, will you pick up the kitchen knife on the counter next to you and defend them with it? And PLEASE, don’t say “that’s different.”

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            God is spelled w/a capital “G”, unless you are referring to some atheist idolatry. What’s wrong w/having a heterosexual, monogamous, God-fearing, nuclear family? Single-parent families do happen, due to deaths & divorces, & there’s nothing wrong w/that. Sardis, you won’t convince anybody here w/your twisted “logic”. This is STILL America where the Constitution STILL is supreme, but for how long is debatable w/obama & his ilk in charge. BTW, I spell obama w/a “little” on purpose.

          • Hoodoo H

            Aaha ha ha
            …’little’-o. Itty bitty teeny weenie..o.

          • Steve Pike

            WOW… that comment just put you in the STUPPID FUC^IN MORON Cat.

          • stevesmartarse

            Guns sure made the old people in this house safer. Doubt they’ll get burgled again

          • boccagalupe

            Sardis, your answer to paratroooper, that “Important people tend to be targets” indicates to me that you think that those of thatv are not provided bodyguard protection are not important. I hope you never find yourself in harms way, but if you are, I’m sure you’ll think yourself important enough to be saved, even if by someone with a firearm. You sound as a fool.

          • Jim Whalen

            Sorry but that study has been disproved!

          • Sardis

            By what? Link me to another peer reviewed study, and if bears the hallmarks of scientific reliability, I’ll gladly concede the point.

          • Scott

            l have read your comments and l feel that it is a shame for someone so articulate to waste your talents expressing thoughts and ideas that are based in irrational thoughts and feelings with next to no basis in reality..i.e. THE REAL WORLD !! C’mon …the puppies and kittens and roses are great on Mothers day cards but they WONT take care of the real problems that life and our free society present to us in todays world.

          • sreynolds

            Peer reviewd “Studys” are BS, lets stick with real scientific facts. That’s all global warming is based on as well. LMFAO The media says there are 7000 scientists with peer reviewed study’s showing manmade global warming is real, what they don’t say is there are over 30000 scientists that say it cannot be proved….. If a person thinks cap n trade will curb emmissions at all, they are fools, the company will continue to make what it makes and any cost increase due to the law will only be absorbed by the consumer. A lose/lose situation for the citizen, again….

          • Sardis

            What are “real scientific facts”?? Whatever you say they are? Clearly, you don’t hold the results of studies conducted by credentialed scientists in very high esteem…

            If you’re going to deny science, at least pretend you have some rational counterargument besides “the media lies to you because it’s liberal” and “peer reviewd [sic] studys [sic] are BS.”

            I am amazed by the capacity of some to violently reject any information that does not confirm their preexisting opinions.

          • sreynolds

            cap n trade is a scam just like Obama care.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            LOOK IN THE MIRROR WHILE YOU SAY THAT!

          • STMA

            Read “More Guns- Less Crime” by John Lott. It is meticulously documented and blows your arguments out of the water. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lott had the same attitude you have until he did the research, at which point he realized his point of view wasn’t backed up by the facts and he changed his mind- now that’s what I call an open mind.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            Read “More Guns, Less Crime”. I can’t recall the author’s name offhand, but it is recognized by experts as correct, & not just pro-gun ones either.

          • MontieR

            Your studies have been refuted and found lacking, aside from all of the “other” studies and the FBI stats showing ALL of the anti gun LIES are exactly that lies. Aside from the irrefutable PROOF of where guns are banned violent crime ALWAYS goes up. Aside from academia losing their credibility thru deliberately skewing results or simply outright lying. Leaving your common sense and all these thing at the door, you MIGHT have a point, NOT.

          • john millican

            HONESTLY!? The Journal of EPIDEMIOLOGY?! A study from doctors of SKIN! Exactly what is their “expertise” in firearms and injuries relating to firearm possession?
            People on here saying they WILL shoot home invaders do not have a “fetish”. They are giving fair warning, and doing their best to keep from having to use their weapons by giving that warning.
            What many people do not understand is that when you shoot someone, you may lose that $500.00+ gun as “evidence”, even if it is “a good soot in self-defense”.

          • Sardis

            I actually saved this comment on my computer because it was so funny. When you talk about doctors of skin, I think you’re thinking of “dermatology.”

            Epidemiology is essentially the science of public health.

          • Rattlerjake

            Definition of epidemiology (n)
            ep·i·de·mi·ol·o·gy
            [ èppi deèmee ólləjee ]

            study
            of disease origin and spread: the scientific and medical study of the
            causes and transmission of disease within a population
            pattern of disease development: the origin and development characteristics of a specific disease

            So tell us all, how being shot has anything to do with disease! Oh, wait, democraps commit 99% of all crimes in this country, liberalism is a disease, so I guess that’s the connection.

          • Sardis

            Epidemiologists use statistical methods of tracking causes of death and other public health issues in this country. For example, they would track automobile accident deaths too. You’re being intentionally dense.

            The nice thing about published studies is that a peer-reviewed study will disclose and discuss its methodology. If you think there’s something unreliable about a study, you can read it for yourself and look for flaws in its methods!

          • Rattlerjake

            No, not dense, realistic. There are other agencies responsible and more qualified to track deaths other than diseases.

          • Herman

            Some how you got under my skin. Let me guess, you are a collage grad, with a teaching degree, maybe even a even a Professor of Social Studies or LiberalArts. I will say that you didn’t graduate with your common sense intact. Schools of higher education try to extract that from all the students, but some escape with it still intact. Its to bad that you didn’t.

          • Sardis

            I’m flattered you think I’m a professor. All I have is my bachelor’s from my state university. I work for a small business.

            What does confuse me is why you think that education would make me less credible? Is superstition and gut feeling the way that all arguments should be decided? At one point, it was “common sense” that the planet was flat and at the center of the universe. It was “common sense” that leeches cure disease by sucking out the bad blood. I choose data instead to inform my arguments.

          • sreynolds

            You need look no further than the d ip shi t grads from Harvard and yale that are in congress and the whitehouse to see a degree from these schools mean s hit.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            Then get ALL the data & decide for yourself. Remember, data is like a bikini: what it reveals is fascinating, but what it hides is more important & more interesting.

          • Herman

            First of all you have to realize what side most of our new channels are on. There is a web site called Guns save lives, which will print what our news channel won’t. That is where guns in the home has saved many lives. I have known a lot criminals in my time and all of them were in favor of strict gun control. Stupid me had to ask several of them why. Their standard answer was when they broke into a home or robbed some one they didn’t have to worry about getting shot. Most of them could over power an ordinary citizen, (after pumping Iron in Prison) or a little old lady with a base ball bat, but they couldn’t over power a victim with a gun, in a home, on the street, or in a business. That study you mentioned, who did the study? You must be smart enough to know that you can bend the facts to suit any thing you want. Like Sam Colt said, God made man, He made them equal.

          • sreynolds

            Your arguments are factless, way more normal or average people get killed every year than famous or rich people ( By a long shot ) Here is the problem with liberalism, why try to take away peoples right to self defense? You don’t like guns, don’t own one. Really quite simple. The “gun” is the “great equalizer” it keeps bullies from running roughshod over somebody elses personal rights. When in the hands of anybody besides a democrat, they are a good thing.

          • Sardis

            There are also many, many more “normal or average people” than “famous or rich people.” I don’t see how it’s a topic of dispute that prominent political figures are more likely to be the targets of assassination attempts than your average Joe.

          • SRM29

            That’s not the point. Politicians have been making gun control laws stricter and stricter. If ordinary citizens have to abide by these gun control laws, EVERYONE should have to! I don’t care if politicians and celebrities are targets! Having a job in the government or making millions by starring in films, does NOT make them any more important than us ordinary citizens. If they don’t like living under the laws they voted/wrote/signed/whatever, then maybe they should repeal them!

          • sreynolds

            My ONLY dispute is this, ALL people are equal, a famous person or a polititons life is worth NO MORE than a homeless man on the street, if the government wants to remove guns from citizens, then they should be removed from all citizens. Only military, police? no secret service and security? hell no. Don’t get me wrong though, this isn’t my belief, I believe the 2nd amendment is my GOD GIVEN right to protect myself and my family from stronger bigger people that would wish to do us harm.

          • Chris

            Speaking of silly arguments, let’s take that “more likely to die by homicide in the home” one of yours and compare to some other things:

            Those people who drive a car are more likely to die in an auto accident. People who have gas appliances are more likely to to die of a natural gas explosion. People who have swimming pools are more likely to drown. Heck, for that matter, let’s point out that married people are more likely to be killed by their spouse than unmarried people. Does this mean we should ban cars, gas appliances, swimming pools or even marriage? Of course it doesn’t – but that’s one of the gun control crowd arguments.

            If all the money that is being spent to save lives from gun deaths by banning guns was spent on things like preschool education, and job opportunities for disadvantaged youth, we could save more lives than simply banning guns will ever save. Bloomberg’s latest pledge to spend $50 million this year on gun control measures could also be used to give 5,000 disadvantaged youth $10k scholarships – more than enough for a trade school education to get them off the streets.

            If you want to save people from gun violence, the best way to do that is to start by destroying the root causes of violence – which are mostly crime, and hopeless poverty.

          • Sardis

            Well you’re sort of missing the point of my argument. Let’s say that the purpose of gun ownership is for self-protection. If gun ownership actually makes you more likely to be killed, then owning a gun is not accomplishing its purpose. It’s not protecting you; it’s endangering you. That’s why your analogies aren’t really analogous.

            The purpose of an automobile is presumably transportation. Assuming you are legally driving, you are substantially more likely to be transported than you are to die from an accident. Your gas appliances are more likely to heat your home, cook your food, etc. than they are to explode. Guns in the home, on the other hand, are more likely to endanger you than they are to be used to ward off home invaders.

            I have never said I support banning guns. I don’t support banning guns. I believe it shouldn’t be as easy as it is to get guns in certain places, and gun ownership should be tracked and subject to licensure. It should be at least as difficult to get a gun as it is to get licensed to drive, and there should be age limits too. These are common sense policies, I think, but unfortunately, even the subject of restricting gun rights raises hackles.

            Thank you for your comments about reducing hopeless poverty. I agree that it’s the source of a lot of the crime in this country.

          • SILENTHAMMER

            Sardis…Please publish your AJE reference. I have access, and I’d like to read the article and numbers for myself.

          • bjreg3

            That article was also proven to be flawed . Use something with substance and facts. They looked at 2 cities, Chicago and Detroit where the majority of gun murders were made with stolen and illegal weapons.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            IF more data had been revealed, it’s most likely that the likelyhood you cite is only, or mostly, in areas of high crime, where guns are even MORE necessary for innocent people to protect themselves from invasion. If you don’t want to have guns in your home, that’s your prerogative. If you want to have/use alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs in your house, ditto, just don’t try to force your preferences on somebody else & we won’t try to force ours on you. Deal?

          • Phil Bronner

            Were that study true…then there must be massive homicide numbers of police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and federal officers dying from homicides in their homes…..
            And if someone is going to commit suicide…they will…regardless of the weapon of choice…
            It IS a silly argument….Individual, God-given rights trump “studies”, and liberal dreams of dominating an unarmed society.

            Don’t want to have a firearm in your home..then don’t, be a victim … but don’t tell me I can’t protect myself and my family…

          • Steve Pike

            read the same article. Then I did some research. And I found out how they came up with their numbers. do you believe all the B.S. you see? I suggest that if you choose, as a law abiding citizen, you choose to wait for the cops to arrive at your house will you are laying on the floor bleeding to death talking to the 911 dispatcher while the cops are walking around the outside of the house making sure they won’t be shot at…… I’ll stop here….. its people like you standing up for the rights of thugs to terrorize elderly.people who put this country in the place it is today. Research Detroit No guns for citizens….. highest murder rate in USA from gun shots… DUMB PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK

          • Herman

            Sardis is right about one thing, important people tend to be targets of assassination attempts. When you are in a position of Power like our President and other Politicians, I guess they can’t help screwing over the common citizen. I have seen it in small town politics and it only gets worse the farther up it goes. Obama extending secret service protection for life for ex Presidents, is a bunch of Crap. He was a street organize a few years ago, now he is a multi millionaire. Pretty good for having a job that only pays some thing like $300,000 a year. If He and Michelle would have had to pay for their Vacations and Golf outing, the would leave the White House owing the Tax Payers money, in 2016.

          • Sardis

            He and Michelle Obama both were also very successful attorneys at a prestigious law firm. Obama’s books are bestsellers and have probably generated millions in revenue.

          • sreynolds

            LOL Cmon dude, they both had their law licenses taken away. Not only that, I think Obama never had a law license, no way in hell that idiot passed the bar exam. Funny nobody from Harvard or Columbia even remembers the man…. His entire existence is a F’n lie….

          • Sardis

            What planet do you live on?

            http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

            Q: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?

            A: No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so.

            http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

            Obama was also elected president of the Harvard Law Review. That tends to create quite a bit of a record of his having gone to Harvard.

            At this point, you’re going to either shut up, or you’re going to call my sources lies or forgeries or something. This really must be a vast conspiracy I guess…Harvard’s in on it; the New York Times are in on it; fact-checking nonprofits are in on it.

            Even in the event that your wild conspiracy theories are true, I don’t think an “idiot” would be capable of deceiving the entire country and TWO presidential elections, all while covering up some vast and inexplicable conspiracy.

            And even then, what would the point of the conspiracy be? Sure, you could say Obama wanted to be president when he really didn’t deserve it. But what about all the other necessary parties that would have had to be in on it? His school teachers? His college professors? Media outlets?

            Many of these birthers say that Obama is a Muslim, or that he’s a member of the Muslim brotherhood, or that he’s even out to impose Sharia law. When exactly is Mr. Obama supposed to accomplish this? He’s served in office about 6 years and has about another 2 left. Do you think he’s saving his forced Islamification of American for the last year of his presidency?

          • sreynolds

            LOL sardi: factcheck???? gee didn’t both Obama and ayers serve on the board there at the same time? YES they did, you are foolish to take much stock in what they say, You have drank the coolaid, fact check is about as credible as Hillary clinto.LOL The guy you admire so much can’t string together two coherent sentences in a row with out someone else telling him what to say on a teleprompter. And new York times??? Don;te ven get me going on that one. Here is the difference between conservatives and liberals, We, as conservatives would love nothing more than for you, as liberal, to see the light and join the fight. Liberals on the other hand would love to see all their opponents killed and suffer greatly, the hatred you have in your heart is a detriment to American society, every time there is a gruesome shooting it is a F’n liberal democrat. You can spin all you want, my only hope is, like I said before. See the light, join the fight.ONE WEEK FROM TODAY “OPERATION AMERICAN SPRING” C’mon down brother, love to talk politics with you face to face..answer this one truthfully from your heart, does it NOT bug you that OUR president had all his records sealed and has paid literally a million dollars to keep them sealed. Those who hide things do it for a reason. I know you laugh at “birthers” but, Obama’s eligibility was never checked, Pelosi vouched for him.. LOL How screwd up is that. This administration has lied time and time again and you see no problem with that? The man is a patholical liar and a MUSLIM…… If you would step back and look at things without the vail of liberal hatred, I believe you too would see the light brother.

          • Sardis

            FactCheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which was founded by Walter Annenburg. Obama has never served on the board of the APPC. Walter and his wife Leonore were a wealthy philanthropic couple who made their money in publishing. They also established the Annenberg Foundation, which funds a number of projects and causes. Obama has never sat on the board of the Annenberg Foundation. By 2008, Walter had passed, but his widow Leonore actually endorsed John McCain for President, not Obama. This connection you refer to is imaginary.

            Whether or not you like his policies or leadership, Obama is incredibly articulate, and I don’t see the point in denying that. See his second debate against Mitt Romney for a good example. There were no teleprompters.

            I’m not sure what the politics of most of the recent notable mass shooters in this country have to do with anything, as they are generally crazy or at least mentally ill. That being said, your claim that “every time there is a shooting it’s a liberal democrat” is demonstrably false. Here is an article published by the Examiner (a news outlet which typically leans right in its political reporting) debunking what you said:

            http://www.examiner.com/article/the-idea-that-recent-mass-shooters-are-mostly-registered-democrats-is-a-myth

            Finally, I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that “liberals…would love to see all their opponents killed and suffer greatly.” This is a pretty wild claim, and I’m not sure I understand how you could possibly support it. I will point out that the bulk of my comments on this thread have been regarding the fact that it’s a shame two teenagers (who I doubt I would’ve particularly liked) died. Many of the more conservative posters have commented that they’re glad the kids died. One commenter even said I was such a moron he would be glad to “cut me down” in order to remove me from the gene pool. Bloodthirsty stuff, huh?

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            Being articulate does not make one honest or even capable of being President. obama is still a liar who would rather climb a locust tree & tell a whopper than stand on the ground in the shade & tell the truth.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            I do wish the obamas would re-activate their law licenses & get the hell out of the WH for good. obama claims to have been a Constitutional Law Professor, but that has never been proven. He might have been an associate instructor or something, because he surely knows how to butcher the document into something it was never intended to be.

          • Stratosåurus®

            Very successful lawyers? Moosechelle was forced to relinquish her license after some inquiries about insurance fraud. Odildo the Mad relinquished his for ‘unspecified reasons’ during another investigation by the Illinois Bar Association. His books are ghost-written fabrications, eagerly bought up by lemmings who would follow him over a cliff eagerly, if there was a possibility that OtM might notice them. You lemmingcrats are intellectually lame.

          • Snailmailtrucker

            Very successful attorneys?
            Then answer me this question.
            Why were both of the Obama’s rights to practice law rescinded or given up ?

          • Guest

            ARE YOU REALLY THAT STUPID? Stars. GO BACK to your meth. You’ll need it when all your stuff is gone.

          • Candyman101

            The firearms that were used did protect human life – the little old lady’s and her brother-in-laws. Too bad for the little thugs and their trash families that want to justify them.

          • Average_Joe56

            ” Disagreeing is one thing, but how on earth is it ok for gun-lovers to demonize activists supporting reasonable policies that would protect human life?”

            Please, define “reasonable policies” for us. And while you’re at it, you can explain exactly how those “reasonable policies” will actually “work” to protect human life.

            For many of us, reasonable is to arm everyone with equal firepower…if it’s good enough for the police, then it’s good enough for the rest of us….if we can’t have it…neither should they. Unless of course you believe that carrying a knife to a gunfight will work out in your best interests (not likely to happen)…..in which case, you are simply delusional.

            Ok, we’re all ears…enlighten us with your wit and wisdom.

            These Are The 13 Rules Of Gun fighting Everyone Should Know

            Have a gun.

            Some words to the wise. Shooting Advice from various Concealed Carry Instructors. If you own a gun, you will appreciate this. If not, you should get one and learn how to use it.

            1) Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.

            2) It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

            3) Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

            (remember this truism at all times)

            4) Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.

            5) Never say “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off. (“Glock’s” are the exception to that rule…)

            6) The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes, the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second. ( the police are there to fill out the crime scene report…make sure that you are still there to make sure it’s an accurate report)

            7) The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.

            8) Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets…You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, cause it’ll be empty.

            9) If you’re in a gun fight:

            If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.

            If you’re not loading, you should be moving.

            If you’re not shooting, moving or loading, you’re probably dead.

            10) In a life and death situation, do something…It may be wrong, but do something!

            11) If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

            12) You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s forehead is pretty much….. universal language.

            13) You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

          • sreynolds

            What liberals and a lot of other folks don’t realize is, every single gun I own, I had to go through an fbi criminal background check, every single one, This is the law in most states. The states where I bought them know how many and what kind I own, THe federal government has no say in the matter. They work for the states, and the states work for us. ( at least, that;’s how is was set up )

          • Winston Smith

            “… reasonable policies …” like what? How about “you are allowed to protect your life against someone who would take it”?
            I’ll tell you who “fetishizes” guns: gangbangers, hood-rat and various other flavors of hoodlums who MURDER FIVE HUNDRED PEOPLE a year in Chicago and hundreds more in other gang infested ghettos around the country! They don’t give a HANG how many “Laws” there are! They LOVE taking selfies of themselves caressing their (probably stolen) Glock or brandishing it in the ‘hip’ sideways grip. Take THEIR guns FIRST – then the private citizen won’t have as much need of HIS!
            Mexico has EXTREME Laws against private ownership of guns – it’s REALLY safe for the average Jose down there, isn’t it! Umm … nope.

          • Scott

            l carry a Kimber .45 because it’s a LOT lighter than carrying a fat, donut stuffed overweight policeman…and a helluva lot more reliable and responsive !!

          • sreynolds

            Nice gun scott, I have a custom crimson carry II .45 my very favorite handgun…. Just wish the magazine held more than 8 rnds. 🙂

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            Due to paralysis on my left side, I cannot properly clean a semi-auto, or I would carry one. I keep a .38 w/in reach at all times except when I’m in a gov’t building where there are armed officers on scene to take care of any crisis that arises. Note: a few yrs ago in AL a thug took a gun away from a cop in the police station & killed him, so trusting cops is a fools errand, even when they are “good” cops.

          • Herman

            The only time in the future that I can see where I might give up my guns is when Jesus comes back and Mankind is Perfect Again. Some religious scholars say that Adam was Perfect, but if he was, he wouldn’t have listened to Eve.

          • Sardis

            Jesus preached mercy too, right? I don’t think he was as bloodthirsty as a lot of the people on this thread.

          • SRM29

            Bloodthirsty?? None of us relish the thought of actually killing someone! We’re not animals! We are just passionate of our rights to own firearms for the purpose of protecting our families. Hopefully we will never need to fire at another human being, but if the need arises, we have the tools necessary. That doesn’t make us “bloodthirsty” We also know by the time the police arrive, you’re either dead or the intruder will be long gone.

            Yes, Jesus preached mercy, but He didn’t preach being a doormat.

          • Hoodoo H

            Obama Troll lately?

          • SILENTHAMMER

            Sardis, Sardis….why are you arguing the point? Yes, this was TRAGIC. But it was tragic BEFORE the boys were killed, NO? These youths obviously felt they were BETTER than the people they robbed. They felt and acted on the idea that somehow THEY deserved what they took from those people. And obviously, their families were not doing anything about their behavior. They may have felt that, “Well, if those people don’t DO anything about our stealing their stuff, then that’s tough, and we’ll just keep doing what we’re doing.” Who knows? It happened, and now the shooters have to reconcile the killing too. Parents are shirking their duty to discipline children. It’s part of the love they should have for them. Have you disciplined your children lately? (Not meant as an insult.)

          • sabbath bloody sabbath

            Sardis…”Disagreeing is one thing, but how on earth is it ok for gun-lovers to demonize activists supporting reasonable policies that would protect human life?”
            Please, tell me your position on abortion?

          • insaney

            A FETISH is,something that sexually excites or arouses a person. Although I have no doubt there are some people with gun fetishes, I don’t think it is the epidemic you seem to descibe

          • bjreg3

            It’s funny but gun owners are demonized by people like yourself everyday with your fetishes about guns. It is also factual that the last 3 major gun violence situations were done by mentally Ill left wing kooks. Does that mean that left wingers shouldn’t have or own guns because they are delusional? I left out Ft. Hood, he was a terrorist of a different stripe.

          • oldmo

            So, taking this woman’s gun away would have protected her life ? We are not demonizing activists like you, we are just saying leave our old ladies alone. If you don’t like guns then don’t buy one and pray to your Allah that these type maggots never break into your home.

          • smolicht

            Because there is nothing reasonable about their proposed policies.

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            There are NO “reasonable gun laws”. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, so what good are any laws that restrict the right of law-abiding citizens?

          • Phil Bronner

            Because there are no reasonable policies….and how on earth is it OK for the anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Bill of Rights, anti-2nd amendment, anti-“gun” “activists” (read: those who would control an unarmed population) to demonize those who believe in individual freedom, and God-given rights? Government’s sole function with respect to rights is to protect and guarantee them….not “infringe” or come up with “reasonable policies”…..reasonable to whom?
            As a 26 year retired police veteran…the majority of the time, police arrive AFTER the crime has been committed….and why do you think the Police are Armed? To protect themselves from the same cockroaches committing crimes that the law abiding citizens are protecting themselves from! What bubble have YOU been living in?

          • Steve Pike

            With each comment you make… you are making less and less sense

          • A reasonable policy would be for the parents to teach their kids not to steal in the 1st place. Give us all a break, or should we give out your address so that the next triple threat that burgles your place?

          • alclown

            I suggest they walk in the slums of Detroit , LA , Chicago , New York and how many other cities slums or just bad areas of America un armed and see how that turns out. Better yet at night . An other idea how about some of the areas of America being taken over by illegal aliens or muslims .

          • Hoodoo H

            Fetishization…guess while he was over the barrel, he was gun-f___ed.
            You are right DD1994.
            SEMPER FI.

          • zabs

            It’s interesting to see how you would rather get all feely about the criminal, but you do not care one ounce about an old lady who felt her privacy invaded, and herself in danger, not once, but 3 times by these same thugs, and her stuff that she collected taken by these idiots. IT WAS NOT THEIR HOME OR STUFF. They had NO RIGHT to invade her home. If they got shot, they deserved to be SHOT. Unless you have ever been invaded like that, shut up. If you think like that it is more tolerable to be all feely for a criminal than their victim, feel free to take your fascist, stupid, communist, feely peely, redshirt cowardly butt out of America on the first available plane, Sardis. You are too spineless to be American. We don’t need crybaby diaper smelling ratcowards in our country. Put a sign on your door, I’m unarmed, and see how that works out for you.

          • sreynolds

            ANd my guess is, if there was nothing of value there for the thugs they would have started beating on the old lady, glad it turned out like it did I guess….

          • Alvin York

            oh bullshit. Guns are used between 800,000 to 1 million time in the US to prevent crimes according to the FBI and CDC. No-one is itching at the chance to use them but are willing when the time comes. Judging by you your recent comments its you freedom hating anti-gun ass-wagons who are out of touch.

            Yes, lets disarm everyone and then criminals will see that everyone is unarmed and will lay down their arms. Go ride your unicorn you idiot.

          • Sardis

            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

            Some highlights from these peer-reviewed studies.

            “We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.”

            “Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.”

            “We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.”

            “We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.”

            “Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens”

          • MontieR

            Peer reviews from educated idiots that can’t change a flat tire. You are the reason we are in the shape we are in can you even understand what you read if so try reading the constitution.

          • Sardis

            What do you have that these “educated idiots” do not? A strong gut feeling?

            And what does the constitution say that I am missing? The 2nd Amendment says that you have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say you get to use those arms as you see fit, against whomever you’d like.

          • leonard

            This incident isn’t a shooting against anyone I see fit it’s against a criminal committing a criminal act, with the possibility of taking a human life. While your researching trends check the violent crime rates against the elderly and why laws have been passed by both parties making targeting elderly, disabled and children more severe. They knew exactly who they were targeting, or in plain English victimizing… In America I have a right to not be a victim…After many years as a paramedic I’ve seen a few. Wherever you came from I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate being a victim, probably why you’re here, America has many opportunities including the RIGHT to defend my home. All those studies look great till it’s you or one of your loved one’s. Intellectualizing a wrong act doesn’t ever make it right…..

          • Sardis

            The right to self defense isn’t necessarily the same thing as the right to kill someone who enters your home without your permission. It’s not self defense until you think that you have no choice but to use deadly force to protect your own life. If you were to, say, wake up and catch two kids in the process of leaving through your front door, it’s not self defense to shoot them in their backs. That’s murder, and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.

          • sreynolds

            Wrong, self defense is when someone makes me “feel” threatened,, you oughta love that word. LLLOOOLL “feel” it’s what entire left wing policies are based on. FEELINGS , not facts.

          • Sardis

            What if I were a raging racist, and I felt threatened every time I saw a Black person? Would I then be entitled to shoot all the Black people I see?

          • sreynolds

            That scenario is quite a bit diiferent than a people illegally braking into your house.

          • sreynolds

            The 2nd amendment was created to keep in check tyrannical asshats like Obama….and holder and 90% of the rest of congress. OH and also for self defense from roaving bands of democrats.

          • Sardis

            Please tell me where it says that in the Constitution. Or, at least, please tell me about your conversations with the drafters of the Constitution in which they explained their thinking to you.

          • sreynolds

            The founders intent is spelled out in the federalist papers….
            There you are with your liberal attitude again,, I am NOT the enemy brother…. Unite and join the fight, it’s not left VS right, it’s the citizens against tyranny. Our ever expanding government is tyrannical, they are vindictive towards citizens…….

          • Jim Whalen

            This is the problem, you are getting your information from Harvard. The most liberal university out there. Most of all of their “opinions” have been disproved. Oh and by the way the article that you linked above is basically the opinion of some liberal nut that really does want to remove the 2nd Amendment and disarm all Americans. Please get your information from an independent source, like maybe the FBI or Law Enforcement!

          • Sardis

            My favorite Stephen Colbert joke: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

            Another great quotation I came across today from astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson: “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

            Finally, why is Harvard the most liberal university out there? Because it comes out with research which doesn’t reinforce your preconceived notions? Because Obama went to Harvard law, as some other commenter pointed out? Ted Cruz went there too.

            I’ve backed up my arguments with specific studies. Everyone else who disagrees with me keeps telling me that the studies I’m referring to either (a) have been disproved, or (b) are not reliable because liberals’ science doesn’t trump your “common sense.” The funny thing it, no one’s been able to show me anything that disproves what I’m saying. And certainly no one has been able to show me a good reason why I should disregard the peer-reviewed research of phd scientists.

          • sreynolds

            It’s a damn joke of a school since it graduates people like Obama for money. al franken, (lol) grayson, sestac, in fact there are a ton of senators and congressman/women that went to Harvard.. NUFF SAID about that topic lol There are about maybe 50 good people out of 535 in congress.

          • Aristophanes

            Harvard. sardis? You really expect people to take a so-called study from harvard seriously? Give me the same results from the fbi or nsa, I might consider taking it seriously. But, harvard is a den of liberals and will skew everything toward violating the second amendment. You will have to do much better than harvard for me to believe this crap.

          • Rattlerjake

            Seriously, you actually believe anything that comes from Harvard, the most corrupt and communist institution in America. Just think, you messiah, Ovomit came from there, that should tell you how honorable that POS institution is!

          • Sardis

            The most corrupt and communist institution in America? Huh? First of all, it’s not exactly a government agency or anything like that, so I’m not sure what your concern is with corruption. Second, why is it communist? Does Harvard advocate for forced collectivization? Nationalizing private industry? Third, do you realize that while the link I posted is to a Harvard website, the journals listed therein are national peer-reviewed journals without any special Harvard affiliation?

            Obama graduated from Harvard Law. So did Ted Cruz. A lot of intelligent people on both sides of the political spectrum have been educated at Harvard. I don’t mean to be going on and on about Harvard; there are plenty of other great academic institutions out there, but I remain flabbergasted by the persistent hostility to intellectualism I’ve encountered on this comment thread.

          • sreynolds

            LOL peer reviewed studys again????? They do this when there no available faacts sardi…….

          • Scott

            hey Al…jack that figure up to 2 million and you will be a lot closer to the truth !!

          • Realistic

            Sardis, I have written papers and have done studies on juvenile delinquencies. If caught they would serve little time and get released back where they started and move on to the next big crime. At that age they deserve what they got because of their initial actions of a full fledged criminal. What would it take for you to open your eyes? They do they need to kill some one before you say other wise? What if it was you? What if they were going to hurt your kids? I hope you would fight to the death to protect your loved ones with any tool available. A gun like a hammer or knife is a tool that can be lethal. If your not comfortable with Americans protecting themselves, then don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

          • willyman

            have you an honorable discharge from one branch of our armed forces?
            I do, I have 4,no person has the authority from anyone to victimize another, everyone with the liberal mindset wants to stand and shout how reprehensible it is because criminals got caught in the act, no matter their age, they were caught by their victim in the criminal act,
            but lets turn this around, and for this conversation, these perpetrators, abused and killed these elders, you would stand and say oh they didn’t mean to do it, really,
            Here put this in a pipe and smoke on it, I am a working taxpayer, if you or any others want entitlements, GET A JOB AND EARN THEM!
            The 2nd Amendment is not a right, neither a priviledge, It is a demand placed on the citizen to maintain control of the government, a government that is by, of, and for THE PEOPLE

          • Sardis

            I’m a member of “THE PEOPLE.” So were those two kids who got shot. The American people is not only made up of those who choose to read the 2nd Amendment in a way that supports their immature action-hero revolutionary fantasies. “THE PEOPLE” of this country are also those who want sane gun policies and a cultural respect for the sanctity of human life.

          • sreynolds

            Gun control is hitting what you aim at. Trying to infringe on the second amendment is against the law junior….

          • Candyman101

            You are just another liberal troll who believes that people have the right to burglarize and terrorize their neighbors, because, obviously, they are just good kids who made a mistake. Male cattle droppings! These are the type of little thugs that rape and murder little old ladies in their homes.

          • Sardis

            I’d be much more likely to believe that these were the “type of little thugs that rape and murder little old ladies in their homes” if there was any indication whatsoever that they had ever tried to do such a thing.

            Most robberies and burglaries are fast. You run in, snatch what you can, and sprint away. I don’t know what happened, but there’s no reported fact to suggest that the teens tried to physically harm anyone or that the teens had harmed anyone in the past.

            These kids didn’t have the right to steal from anyone’s home. They deserved to be punished accordingly. They probably didn’t deserve to die.

          • Guest

            Then I recommend you post a sign in your yard stating that you do not endorse guns in your home so your neighbors can rest safe knowing all they criminals will be targeting you instead. They only run in, snatch what they can, and sprint away, right? What’s the danger in that? Put your actions where your mouth is and publicly declare that you don’t believe in guns in your home!

          • T-Bone

            Then I recommend you post a sign in your yard stating that you do not endorse guns in your home so your neighbors can rest safe knowing all the criminals will be targeting you instead. “They only run in, snatch what they can, and sprint away,” right? What’s the danger in that? Put your actions where your mouth is and publicly declare that you don’t believe in guns in your home!

          • Jim Whalen

            I would LOVE for you to go to a penitentiary and talk to some of the guys there that are in for life because they murdered someone and ask them how they started, I bet you 99% will say committing robberies.

          • detroitheat

            According to the news reports, that may be just what happened they ran in snatched what they could ( of this lady’s property ) and sprint out, they had to be unbelievably fast, for that bullet traveling at between 900 to 1200 + fps it didn’t catch up to them, until they were on their way out. They just may have made it out if, they had ran in and ran out, or sprinted in and ran out, or sprinted in and sprinted out, “the world may never know” said the wise old owl, and that owl old by not breaking into other people’s homes. PS:You are an Ass Hole…

          • Joe Irwin

            That’s right they did not but they thought it was worth risking their life for. Everyone knows if break into some one home, there will be a pissed off home owner on the other side, you are either going to get shot or get the crap beat out of you.

          • charlie

            hopefully the next bunch make your house their first stop so we can see what you have to say after BEING the victim

          • Sandra Lee McMahon

            You are one CRAZY PERSON… My home is my private property come in it uninvited you are going out DEAD…

          • MontieR

            The only thing out of touch with reality is your mind.

          • charlie

            you are a f—- n idiot

          • Aristophanes

            You really don’t get it, do you? Fetishization?? Is that another liberal made-up word to attempt to make Americans defenseless against criminals and the government? What you call a “fetish”, I call being realistic and defending yourself. You may want to be a victim of something like this, I prefer to be able to defend my home. And, yes, my neighborhood is that type of place. And, yes, I do have a gun that I will use if anyone breaks into my house while I am there. I refuse to be a victim because some bleeding heart (for the criminals) liberal thinks the CRIMINALS should be treated with more compassion than the victims. YOU are the reason this country is in the mess we are in now. Happy, you twit?

          • Sardis

            What mess are we in right now? The economy could certainly be better shape, and we could stand to be a little friendlier to the environment, I guess, but I don’t get the impression that’s what you’re talking about.

            There is a small portion of this population that loves guns, buys them up like crazy, and extols their importance to freedom and the American way. Then there’s the rest of us, who don’t need guns to feel like grown-ups and don’t need guns to feel safe.

          • PatHenry

            You don’t seem to know you are in the minority. More of us own guns than you can imagine. Many don’t broadcast the fact but I can assure you more homes have guns than do not! Don’t worry when you are being victimized we will keep our guns hidden and let you fight you own battle barehanded!

          • Sardis

            How can you possibly assure me that more homes have guns than not when you also claim that many don’t broadcast the fact? Surely there’s no national gun owner’s registry to verify your claim…heaven forbid!!

          • PatHenry

            After being in the Gunsmith business selling and repairing them I have a better idea who and how many than you will ever have.

          • Sardis

            That’s true. If your representative sample is all the customers in your store, then nearly 100% of Americans must own guns!

          • PatHenry

            Go ahead live in your bubble I know a cross section of people that own and train that you will never meet. Doctors, school teachers, pastors, neighbors that never let on to morons like you they are willing to take care of themselves instead of giving up their rights to the nanny state

          • Aristophanes

            You really are living in a liberal never never land? Small portion? Since obozo has been elected, sales of guns have jumped!

            cnsnews.com: Gun sales for obozo’s first term was 91.1% HIGHER than President Bush’s first term.

            CNNmoney:
            “Gun sales are up in the wake of Barack Obama’s re-election on Tuesday, driven by fears of tighter regulations under a Democratic president, especially for firearms that might be classified as assault weapons.”

            I guess “small portion” is a very subjective term as far as you are concerned.
            Also, Americans are more concerned than any other country about the environment. Why don’t you take you whining to China who is producing more of an environmental footprint than we are. Oh, wait, communist country. Liberals do not criticize communist countries, only their own country. Why don’t you move to a communist country and see how far your civil rights (or any of your taken-for-granted rights) are allowed. Try getting your news from an un-biased source. The liberal media is not reporting news at all, they are backing obozo’s hatred of America and are really rather blatant about it.

          • Sardis

            1. I’d bet you that most of the people who started buying up guns like crazy during Obama’s presidency are people who already owned at least one gun to begin with.

            2. Americans are certainly not more concerned with the environment than any other country. Yale released its 2014 “Environmental Performance Index” rankings, which measures a country’s performance in terms of meeting a number of environmental impact targets. The U.S. is number 33 on that list. China is at 118, and of course they’ve received plenty of criticism for that. However, I think it’s much more productive to concentrate on improving our own country’s environmental footprint instead of pointlessly criticizing another country for theirs, don’t you? And please don’t bother tell me that these rankings are wrong because Yale is liberal.

          • machodog

            So, how will you protect yourself and your family when the revolution starts? Gonna bring a knife? Gonna sit and sing Kumbaya with the enemy?

          • Sardis

            Revolution? What revolution? I live in the real world. As time passes, people with your political views will become an increasingly rare breed.

          • machodog

            You’re an idiot. As a matter of fact you’re a demoncratic moron. When the revolution starts you’ll be out there flapping your arms and crying like a little girl whining that “this can’t be”! I’d cut you down if I ran across you just to insure you don’t pass on that “stupid” gene.

          • Winston Smith

            “virtually nonexistent’?? Google “home invasion statistics”! Those I looked at stated thst according to the FBI and “Statistics USA” there were “an average of 3,600,000 home invasions a year between 1994 and 2000” and “1 out of every 5 homes will be victimized”!
            NOW, if you actually believe that stricter gun laws would save lives – ask the families of the victims of Fort Hood, the Aurora theatre, Columbine and on and on! ALL THESE were DECLARED “Gun free zones”! In fact, the Aurora theatre was the ONLY “Gun free” theatre out of four in town!

          • Sardis

            I would imagine the rate of home invasions on military bases is far lower than the national average, perhaps even close to zero.

            In the three cases of mass shootings you cited, loose gun laws made guns available to the shooters when tighter mental health checks and rules could have prevented the crazies from accessing them. In the case of Fort Hood, the first victims actually were armed security personnel, so it’s not even true that there were no “good guys” with guns.

          • Rattlerjake

            You’re a liar! There were NO armed security personnel killed, Hasan entered his workplace, the Soldier Readiness Processing Center,
            where personnel receive routine medical treatment immediately prior to
            and on return from deployment. He started shooting randomly, then switched to choosing targets.

          • Winston Smith

            Those “crazies” weren’t the owners of the guns – they were “borrowed” (stolen) from the owners.
            AND you STILL haven’t addressed (among other points) how to get the guns away from the hood-rats and thugs who pile bodies like cordwood in our metropolitan areas … and how you would keep them from STEALING more.

          • Aristophanes

            You really are being indoctrinated, aren’t you? You really believe the CRIMINALS bought their guns LEGALLY? You really believe that the “crazies” (not a politically correct term sardis. You really need to watch that or people might start accusing you of being a conservative) would be stopped by any checks or rules? What planet are you from? Pluto?

          • Scott

            Sorry to say it, but YOU are way out of touch with reality !! The freedom and RIGHT to keep and bear arms is what founded this great nation…liberals like you…and l’d guess your buddy Obama, are what threaten to bring it down !!

          • alclown

            Dum Dum Dum Dum

          • Rob Bertram

            Shut up you liberal fool

          • Hoodoo H

            …says the Obamatroll.

          • frank jackson

            Army is not excited, he/she is just stating a fact. My brother is a reserve police officer, just about everyone on his street is either a police officer or a sheriff’s deputy. Weapons inside the houses, hell yes. Possibility of a burglar coming out alive, very improbable.

          • bjreg3

            You’re delusional with your fetishizing about two punks that terrorized the elderly. They got what they deserved and they won’t be terrorizing anymore. Jeeze, think for once instead of fantisizing about your fetishizing……

          • dane

            What’s out of touch is the morals of a lot of people both old and young who think the don’t need to earn stuff they think the government and others owe them!

          • Phillip_in_TX

            Watch the movie “Innocents Betrayed.” You can find it on YouTube.

          • oldmo

            It worked for the little old lady didn’t it ? Was this a hypothetical situation ? I think you are the hypothetical one here.

          • colt38

            Sardis, do you keep your door locked at night? If you do, why not unlock it and counsel the scum that break in?

          • smolicht

            B.S. They got what they deserved. Case Closed

          • Cameron Triplett Sr

            Haven’t you been watching the news? Mass shootings also take place on military bases where soldiers, who are trained in the proper use of firearms, aren’t allowed to go armed on base. No sane person WANTS to shoot another, let alone kill someone else, but we’d rather kill than be killed. You do what you want, & they’ll have your funeral long before mine. I do wish your Utopia was reality, but the sad fact is, it isn’t.

          • Phil Bronner

            You really are clueless aren’t you? How about you post a sign outside your home…”No Guns Here…I refuse to protect myself, my family and my property”……Let us know how that works out for you…

          • Jeanne Stotler

            I laid in bed one night and heard someone walking in my house, my husband was working 3rd shift, and I was alone with 2 babies, I lay there in the dark praying my babies would not wake up, Next day when Hubby got home an had some sleep we went and bought a gun. It would have taken sheriff over 1/2 hour to get there, we had no 911 then and even so the culprit would have heard me call. 2nd amendment says very clearly we have the right to own guns, get over it, if decent people do not defend themselves, only the criminals will have guns and a lot of innocent people will be slaughtered .

          • conservative

            No.

          • Igor

            It’s interesting to see how you “assume” that others are eager to kill. Project much?
            If nobody comes into my home and threatens me (and this includes those no-knock raids!!), then no harm no foul no bodies no blood.
            Is this too simple for you? Something tells me your warped thought processes have gotten out of hand. Remember that Reality is a stone cold beeotch.

          • Steve Pike

            You are out of touch with reality. I feel sorry for you

          • Taking care of business!

            Police carry weapons to protect THEMSELVES not you. And the SCOTUS has ruled on that repeatedly. So don’t count on police protection or a rapid-response.

          • Hoodoo H

            Hooah!

          • Clint

            As it should be on all military bases.

          • Snailmailtrucker

            You are authorized weapons in the Constitution !

        • Terylee

          Yes Yes….

      • Chris

        The boys wern’t caught the first time they robbed the widow, what makes you think the second time would have been any different.

        Let me guess, your probably a believer that women being raped should deficate, and urinate on themselves, to be less attractive to the rapist too??

        The woman should not have to lock herself in the bathroom, and wait for local police employee (that the Supreme Court has ruled has no duty to protect you) to show up, and hope she lives through the ordeal.

        If they wanted to turn their lives around, they should have started that night, by deciding not to rob the widow for the second time.

      • AntiLies

        your logic goes the other way too, and your ‘guess’ that they would have gotten caught is just that, a guess, and your ‘guess’ that the old lady would have been ok is just that, too, a guess, and the kids ‘turning their lives around’ is just another guess, too.

        kids getting shot is sad, indeed, but don’t blame the home owner for this, start with the kids’ parents, the PC school, and those politicians who fight more for the rights of CROOKS than good citizens.

      • botone

        Seriously?? U must be a liberal to think like that!

        • Sardis

          I don’t think it’s “liberal” or “conservative” to value human life. Maybe I would feel differently if these kids weren’t 14 and 16, but that’s all they were–kids. Maybe, if they hadn’t been shot and killed, they would never have been caught; maybe they would have continued to engage in crime for the rest of their lives. We don’t know.

          What I do know is that at that age, it’s not too late to turn your life around, and at that age, people do stupid things that they will later regret. It’s a damn shame that two children are dead.

          If these kids had broken in before, it also sounds like they weren’t out to hurt anybody–they were just teenagers engaging in stupid teenager shenanigans.

          Do I fault whoever shot them? I don’t know. It depends. If you’re in legitimate fear of your life, that’s one thing. But did the shooter know these were kids? Did the shooter know who these kids were? Would a warning shot have been enough to scare them off? Life isn’t something to be undervalued, even the life of a petty thief.

          Often when a gun is involved, things end up being a little too final a little too quickly, before all of these types of questions can ever be sorted out.

          • dee

            So if the person had fired a warning shot and scared these kids away. Then they got themselves a gun and killed both the woman and her brother in retaliation for running them off. Would that make you feel better?

          • Sardis

            Now, where would two young teenage knuckleheads get that gun? From one of their homes? From a gun store that sells guns to children? Where would those teenagers have learned to fire guns? On gun ranges that allow kids under 18 to practice? Sounds like this is one case where everybody having a gun *wouldn’t* make everyone safer. Imagine that.

          • Sardisinwndrlnd

            Can you tell me of a gun store that sells guns to children? I have never heard of this.

          • Sardis

            http://www.crickett.com/

            “My First Rifle”

          • Elliot Denine

            It does not take learning to fire a gun. They are all designed simply to point and click….easier than a camera Sardis
            .

          • S.M

            have you ever been the victim of a violent crime?Not a bar fight or getting your wallet stolen I mean real violence when you’ve been beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead?

          • Judy C

            Would you still feel the same if it was your Mother or Grandmother in the same situation?

          • David Webb

            They would probably steal them. They were thieves you know.

          • Bo

            They get them from other young knuckleheads WHO BURGLERIZE HOMES! Then they practice shooting them anywhere they want, because they don’t give a damn about gun safety, or the law.

          • Armed in NY

            Where would they get a gun ??? Really ? Are you that naive. most outlaws with guns don’t buy them in stores. Many steal them from law abiding citizens or from their older thug friends that they run with.

          • Nicole Sheets

            Kids get guns in the strictest guns states… where there is the highest crime……imagine that.

          • T-Bone

            Wow, you really are overlooking the obvious. Just like every other criminal, THEY GET THEIR GUNS BY STEALING THEM!!!

          • MontieR

            ANYONE with $50 to $100 bucks can get any type of firearm they want any time they want. No background check, no magazine limits, nothing it is called the black market. Criminals will NEVER register anything. For your information I have been shooting my entire life and have never killed anyone, BUT you enter my home without invite and refuse to leave, you WILL leave in a body bag.

          • Chuck

            Well then Sardis, ask yourself where do criminally-oriented kids do indeed get guns with which to commit violent crimes? Personally I don’t know, but the little sons of guns do manage. Aren’t they precious?

          • Sardis

            So let’s just throw our hands up, say “screw it,” and make it as easy as possible, since they’ll just get guns anyway.

          • Jim Whalen

            Sorry Sardis but that is a really ignorant statement! Look at all the criminals out there that have guns that are not even allowed to own guns, now where in the hell do you think they got them? They stole them or bought them from someone that stole them! Man each post of yours I read I really feel sorry for your ignorant butt!

          • Aristophanes

            You are thinking LEGALLY. These kids could very easily buy a gun off the streets. Doing what you and your liberal cohorts want to do would only stop law-abiding citizens from having guns, not CRIMINALS! For some reason, you just can’t seem to fathom that. If you do not want to own a gun, that is your choice. I choose to own a gun (and I never did before obozo was elected) and that is my CONSTITUTIONAL right.

          • Sardis

            With some issues, it suffices to say that if you don’t support x thing, don’t get one. Same-sex marriage for example: If you don’t support same-sex marriage, don’t have one. Fine. It really doesn’t affect you.

            This is not an adequate argument for guns, however. If people are armed who shouldn’t be armed, that endangers me and everyone else. Right now, it’s possible for people who shouldn’t be armed to legally buy firearms.

            Finally, as to illegal guns, where do you think these guns come from? They’re built in gangbangers’ basements? Of course not. At some point, these guns were legally purchased at gun shops, and then lost, stolen, or given away. Limiting the supply of legally purchased guns will of course limit the supply of guns in general that are available to people.

          • Aristophanes

            Okay, I will, for the sake of argument, try to follow your convoluted thinking. What you are saying (I think) is that no one should legally own guns because the gangbangers, criminals, etc. might get hold of one illegally. This makes absolutely no sense. Also, who decides who should not be able to own guns? You? obozo? holder? I have one phrase for you: fast and furious. Ring a bell. Sounds to me like our government should not own guns. Your last sentence is a blatant disregard of the second amendment.

          • Judy C.

            At the ages 14 and 16, they should know right from wrong. Period! It’s easy to sit back and do the shoulda, woulda, coulda thing when you aren’t the one involved. Put yourself in the elderly womans shoes and what she might have been feeling. Being scared in your own home where you should be feeling the safest at isn’t a good way to be living. She had the right to defend herself and home no matter what.

          • finishstrongdoc

            Incorrect. Children of 14 and 16 are NOT adults, and their brains aren’t developed enough to have good judgment and they don’t have the experience of having made bad judgments and paid the price for making bad judgments that adults have at their disposal.

            The teenage brain is essentially in incomplete formation. Teenagers MUST BE ASSUMED to NOT know right from wrong. They MUST be strictly PREVENTED from doing wrong, or they will just naturally DO wrong. This provides for their developing mind the opportunity to GROW INTO doing GOOD, getting into the HABITS that PRODUCE GOOD.

          • Christopher Walls

            Hey you yea you the 2 that are robbing me and scaring my old-self to death how old are you??? Well mam and sir i am 14 and i am 16.. I will go ahead and turn the light on just to make sure… Ok we will wait for you to do that!!! You 2 want some cookies and milk when your done!!?? Sure id love some!! Really I MEAN REALLY smh i surely hope that this doesnt happen to anyone who is trying to justify these kids… You must notlive around my area and probably erm 75% of everywhere else seriously!!!

          • tired of dumbshit

            their parents sure didnt strictly prevent them from being out on more than one occasion at 12am

          • zabs

            You’re an idiot. Go get a brain transplant.

          • Judy C

            First of all, I never said anything about them being adults! Secondly, I do know how to read and capital letters are not needed to get your points across. Who are you to talk down to me about the teenage brain not being developed enough to make good decisions. They can put kids in school and give them work that was college material when I was in school and expect them to learn it but you tell me that they are not mentally developed enough to know right from wrong?

            I graduated High School at the age of 16. I never heard of any teens breaking into elderly peoples homes repeatedly, We knew better! So stop your YELLING and go back to your books or better yet put the books away and go out into the world and get a real lesson on the workings of the teenage mind.

          • Nicole Sheets

            Judy C., Among others on here, you are completely right. I have children that are younger than these two and they know that it is wrong to steal! Thank you for your intellect and comments.

          • finishstrongdoc

            No attempt is made today to create an atmosphere of respect for adult authority figures, or adults, for that matter. 14 and 16 year old boys are man-sized but their brains aren’t developed enough to be able to act with the proper amount of self control that prevents tragedies from happening to themselves and others.

            Our culture coddles teens and calls those who use corporal punishment to maintain physical control of teens “child-abusers.” Obviously, this is a recipe for disaster, and I stand by by assertion that teens’ minds are incapable of adequately processing life events with good judgment.

            From this incident linked below, you can see the adults in charge of the situation have no adequate answers, in my estimation, for how to maintain control in classrooms today. And what was probably a good teacher “had to” get fired,
            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/07/you-may-think-a-teacher-being-fired-for-using-a-broomstick-on-a-student-is-a-no-brainer-but-theres-much-more-to-this-story/

          • Judy C

            I still have to disagree about their brains being undeveloped enough to know right and wrong. If they are taught, then they know. If all these “Do Gooders” would mind their own business and let the parents be parents, then alot of these senseless killings wouldn’t be happening with our young ones.

          • finishstrongdoc

            Beware of half-truths; you may just get ahold of the wrong half.

            Kids *can* know good from evil in a rudimentary way, but if they aren’t adequately disciplined to do good and avoid evil, they will just naturally tend to do evil simply because no one likes to hurt the young, feeling that “they will grow out of it.”. But, a little correction early and consistently applied as necessary (in love) is better than a lot of correction later, applied by strangers who don’t know the child and can’t love the child as much as the parent or parents.

          • Miss Diane

            That is such a ridiculous statement ! When I was TWELVE, I knew the difference between what is right or wrong ! I knew if I did the wrong thing my Dad would bust my ass ! I knew there was consequences !

          • MrsMork

            Seriously?? Teenager shenanigans???? Robbing and terrorizing elderly people is NOT teenager shenanigans.

          • Miss Diane

            Lol ! Teenage shenanigans ! I mean it is not like the boys were toilet papering the old ladys house ! Give me a break !

          • thrillbot

            You’re right about one thing, sir or madam, it’s not liberal or conservative, it’s bonehead or good judgement.

          • Nicole Sheets

            Thrillbot, you are awesome! I was thinking that same thing!

          • Mike Rollins

            Being old enough to commit their crimes means being old enough to suffer the consequences.

          • Fred Beggs

            To the ones being invaded the kids just may have been serious crime ridden gangsters who will kill you in a moment. How would they know the age? How would they know? When someone is raping you and what is yours is it really just about stupid kids? My home is like my body and it should be. I can overlook a spit on my face but intrusion while your home in bed, maybe taking a shower or with my child. Time to shut them down before they terrorize again. It was a stupid idea and thought that got them killed, not the one who shot them.

          • John Thompson

            its not to late to turn any life around! If they want the change. it will not happen otherwise they got to want it!

          • Cynthia McBride

            Value human life? How about the little criminals? Would ya want to preach to them about ‘valuing human life’ if they had broken in and hurt or killed the old folks inside?

          • jeremy

            warning shots are never a good idea, that bullet has to go somewhere, sometimes into the neighbors house, killing one of the neighbors

          • Sardisinwndrlnd

            Ok, we all know its a shame to lose young lives. Thats the only real point you’re making. The fact is, thats the risk you take when you chose to break into someone’s home, no matter how young you are.

            They robbed her house multiple times. You sound like you’re in a world of rainbows and butterflies. Of course it would have been nice if she had let them steal her things, called our magical heroes “The Police” and let them get those kids some probation and community service. And then at the end of this fairy tale, the children decide never to commit crime again. The End.

            ..Or maybe they just go hit up a different old lady’s house, except this time sneakier, with a weapon. Of course its a shame young lives were lost, but you have to realize that’s not everyone’s focus. That just an obvious fact that you feel for some reason should be highlighted. Yes. We know. Sad.

          • Sardis

            You picked up on half of my point. Not only do I think it’s a shame to lose young lives; I think the loss of young lives should be avoided if absolutely possible. That means that morally, you don’t have the absolute right to deal death the moment someone crosses your property line without permission. If you have a reasonable fear for your life, should you be able to use deadly force to protect yourself? Yes, as a last resort. If you come downstairs after a nap, catch a couple of teenagers leaving through the front door with a handful of your jewelry, is it okay to shoot them each in the back of the head with your handgun? Absolutely not.

            Of those two scenarios I described, none of us know which is closer to the truth. It’s therefore as speculative for me to condemn the shooter as it is for you to defend her, or even praise her.

            What I do know is that guns cannot be used where guns are not present. I know that this article gives no indication the teens intended to physically harm the widow or had hurt anyone else in the past. I know that a human life, yes, even a criminal’s, is valuable, and it’s downright distasteful how quick the other commenters on this post are to say things like “I’m glad they’re dead,” “good riddance from the gene pool,” etc. They were 14 and 16 respectively. They were children who still had time to learn from their mistakes. There’s no guarantee that they would have learned from their mistakes, but I like to believe that we’d rather give them the chance than shoot them dead.

          • Miss Diane

            So would you rather that they beat them to death with a baseball bat or use a bow and arrow, how about a machete ? Is it the choice of weapon they use to protect themselves ? Just because these boys were 14 and 16, doesnt mean that they werent physically superior and outweigh these seniors ! The boys chose their path and unfortunately they didnt choose wisely .

          • Sardisinwndrlnd

            “Guns cannot be used where guns are not present” So do you mean that you don’t believe people should have guns in their homes for self protection?

            I did not praise the widow, by the way, but I would not hold it against her. She wont live in fear anymore. Those teenagers were little house robbing hoodlums, and thats what happens when you choose that path.

            You are saying she should have just stood by and let them rob her, and that the NEWS ARTICLE didn’t say they had intentions to harm her. But SHE didn’t know that at the time. So do you think this woman should just sit and wait for the next time they rob her house? Oh, or wait, for the police to catch them? HAHA. What a joke. In this day and age there is no relying on the police. We are responsible for ourselves now.

          • Need.A.Bigger.Shark

            No, no, no, no. You’re effectively blaming the victims. Why aren’t you bashing the parents for not teaching the kids, or holding them accountable?

            Warning shots are illegal in almost all states, jackwagon. The idea being that if you have time to fire a warning shot, you aren’t in fear for your life. Warning shots also mean you are pointing a weapon at something you don’t intend to destroy, a major no-no when it comes to weapon safety. Thanks for showing everyone you are completely uneducated about gun safety as you are about blaming the real victims

            Breaking and entering, and stealing aren’t stupid teenage pranks. You’re not just stealing possessions, you’re terrorizing a person’s well being, their right to be in their house, without worrying that someone is violating their house, privacy, peace of mind, etc. No one should be subjected to a single burglary, let alone repeated.

            That the kids did it more than once, to the same house explicitly shows my point. These kids weren’t there just for kicks, they were doing it bc they could get away with it, and they didn’t give a sh&t that they were preying on, terrorizing an old lady.

            I sincerely hope that instead of you worrying about the poor little suspects that felt it was ok to repeatedly commit felonies, you are in subjected to repeated violations of YOUR home and YOUR sense of well being. Believe me, when you are constantly waking up in the middle of the night to noises/etc, you won’t be thinking about the two little punks who needed a real life education.

            I cannot possibly convey how frustrating your point of view is. Yes, human life is to be protected. But not at the expense of another humans being right to live in relative peace within their own home. Every single person in this world needs to get this through their heads: if you don’t want to risk getting shot and wounded or even killed, DON’T go around putting yourself in a position where someone might pull a weapon on you, like breaking into their home.

          • Sardis

            You’re right that I don’t know much about guns or gun safety. I’ve never owned a gun. I’ve always felt safer not keeping a gun in my household. I don’t live in the best area, but good locks on my doors and windows help me to feel more secure than a gun would.

            It’s a terrible thing to be scared in your own home. That being said, if I had to choose between the life of a 14 or 16 year old and the peace of mind of an old lady, I’d still protect the life every time.

            It’s hard to swallow how some people can be so enamored with the idea of righteously wielding a gun that they lose sight of the value of human life.

          • zabs

            Your last paragraph is a complete lie. That you think this lady should have been living terrified, and care less for her than the people who terrified her, marks you as a non-feeling, soulless troll. That her sanctity of her home did not matter to you, simply calls you out as heartless. You have never been invaded. She was terrified. She did not deserve to be that. THAT is the right thing to focus on, not if two criminals paid for their crimes. This was a repeat offense. If the boys didn’t want to be shot, they could have stayed home.

          • wrangler89

            home is as far as I can run and after that look out if you break in im shooting you.

          • zabs

            You don’t value the old lady’s life. You’re a troll.

          • Elliot Denine

            A warning shot would most certainly have led to another, subsequent, burglart attempt. Don’t you know that the value of a weapon is much greater than some elderly person’s knickknacks?

          • Sardis

            When someone fires a warning shot, they’re saying “I could shoot you now, but I’m giving you a chance to leave first.” I highly doubt the kids would have returned after that. In fact, most thieves would probably prefer to avoid running into people at all while they steal.

          • Nicole Sheets

            And how was she to know that they were kids? I have a 12 year old and he knows that it is wrong to steal! 12! They were old enough to know what they were doing. I love kids. I have 6 of my own that I would die for!
            The question is: what does this say to the other punks in that neighborhood that thinks it’s all fun and games to break into peoples’ houses? It says that they can potentially be shot! Will they be less likely to break in? Of course! No one wants to be shot! This was the right thing to do and it was indeed a lesson to all the others out there.
            Now, hypothetically speaking, what would have happened if those two scared this lady so much that she died of a heart attache? Would you say that they are just too young to know what they were doing then too? If you truly value life then you should value the innocent, not only the criminals.
            The problem that we have in this time is we don’t expect our children, or each other, to have consequences! They broke in, scared them, broke in again, again scared them, broke in again, scared them again and got shot in the process. You can try to spin it any way but the facts are still the facts.

          • Candyman101

            You better come to good realization that the matter of them being just kids is a cloak to give them an excuse for their behavior. Why do you think that gangs use underage runners for drug runs? Because the juveniles will get a slap on the wrist and then be released. Of course, kids much younger than 14 or 16 killed many GI’s in Vietnam. Age is not the factor here, the crime is.

          • Chuck

            Sardis, that’s all well and good. But life is hard. Privacy and private property are rare and precious on this planet. Violate these natural rights and regardless of your age you do so at your own risk. These two boys chose a helpless old woman, not somebody who could catch them and put their butts in a sling. Bad choice. They created the circumstances of their own demise.

          • Aristophanes

            Nowadays, 14 and 16 are NOT kids. Unfortunately, these kids most likely would have continued and escalated their criminal activities. When do you take it seriously that breaking into the SAME home THREE times is not “teenagers engaging in stupid teenager shenanigans”?

      • ziggy

        Read the story this was not the first time these two punks did this to the woman. This time they got caught and paid the price and saved the tax payers some money.

      • American Infidel

        Would you rather have a gun in your hand or a cop ‘on the way’…20 minutes out. That happened to a woman in this area a few years ago. She called the cops when she heard someone trying to get in her back door. When the thug walked in, he was met by the lady holding a 9mm to his face. He sat at the dining room table for 20 minutes UNTIL THE COPS GOT THERE!

        • Sardis

          That’s awesome. Terrific. She didn’t kill the guy. I applaud her.

          • American Infidel

            I guess you missed where the cops didn’t show up until 20 minutes after she called 911. Suppose she DIDN’T have a gun.
            He had a machete. What do you think HE was planning on doing? He could have paid with his life for his stupidity. And SHOULD have.

          • Sardis

            Why would you kill someone if you didn’t have to? Does every crime merit a death sentence?

          • 101st CIB

            Every felony merits a death sentence. Every felon imposes on the free exercise of Constitutional rights of citizens. If you want to play big boy games, you gotta be willing to play by big boy rules. As far as I’m concerned, these two stepped onto the battlefield between crime and lawful behavior and lost.

          • Sardis

            You believe every felony merits a death sentence? Wow. I’m not sure what there is to discuss with someone for whom human life is so low a priority. It only concerns me that you were a police officer, in a position of public trust.

          • finishstrongdoc

            It’s because We the American People have a HIGH regard for life that we put the HIGHEST penalties for crimes against PEOPLE. When you invade a LIVING QUARTERS, don’t be surprised that actual PEOPLE are IN those living quarters.

          • Sardis

            If you really valued human life, you could probably think of a penalty other than death for a non-violent felony.

          • finishstrongdoc

            Wrong. Home invaders are committing a violent felony, and would face the same risk of life and the same charges as the homeowner if she had gone and invaded their house. The SAME PENALTY. Equal Justice Under the Law.

            No one has a right to say, after the fact of a crime, “Oh, I only was there to look at the pictures on the wall, then I was going to leave.”

            Homeowners have to assume the WORST will happen. That’s why you need a GUN to provide you with the MEANS to PREVENT the WORST from happening.

            Don’t you believe in “Equal Rights?”

            If you did, you wouldn’t be saying the HOME INVADERS had MORE RIGHTS than the HOMEOWNER.

          • Sardis

            Equal rights?!? Equal rights to kill each other? What are you even talking about? What you’re advocating is something different. It’s known as “eye for an eye.” It’s been around since the days of Hammurabi, at least. It doesn’t make for a very first-world kind of society.

          • finishstrongdoc

            Every life is of equal worth. When a felonious assault on a home is committed, people IN that home have a right to NOT have their lives put in jeopardy.

            No matter what you believe, everyone NOW is just a little bit MORE SECURE in their LIVES and in their HOMES because the HOMEOWNER’S LIFE was SPARED, and the life of the INVADERS were forfeit BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS, by their own choice.

            A Barbaric Society says that it is perfectly legal for children living in their FIRST HOMES, their mother’s womb, to be killed and REMOVED from their home. It not surprising, then, that people think it’s perfectly good and proper for anyone to invade any home and be able to GO IN to those homes and take anything they wish, INCLUDING LIFE, if that’s what they “feel” needs to be done, so they may go ahead and happily do *whatever* makes them *happy*….or less bored.

          • Sardis

            Interesting use of the “HOME” metaphor to speak about abortion. Wouldn’t you agree that a person’s body could also be described as his or her home? And that a baby is an invader? I’m not saying that this “HOME” metaphor makes any sense, but I am pointing out that your whole HOME philosophy seems rather half-baked.

            Anyways, the homeowner’s life in the news article was not “SPARED” unless it was ever at risk in the first place. This is my point. A non-violent felony cannot possibly merit a death sentence. If those kids who robbed the widow did not pose her an obvious threat (if, for example, she caught them as they were leaving with their backs turned), then there was not justification for the use of deadly force.

          • finishstrongdoc

            A teenager, as has been already pointed out to you by a cop, is just as capable of killing you as an adult. You may shoot to kill anyone who is uninvited into your LIVING space.

            You don’t know what’s on the mind of the invader, and you MUST assume the WORST. If you don’t, and YOU could have done something to avoid it, YOU would be complicit WITH the invader in ALLOWING the WORST to occur.

            The human right to self defense in primordial and PRIOR to all human laws. Without life, all other rights go out the window with your life, or the life of those you could have spared from being taken by another, a felonious INVADER into YOUR living space.

            You assume too much. You play the omniscient role of one who knows the intent of the homeowner and the intent of the invader. NO ONE can EVER know what COULD have happened IF the two hadn’t been presented with a homeowner with a firearm.

            You know the intent of the invader is to at least steal something. They MAY want to take your life if they don’t want to lose their liberty should they eventually be caught and have YOU as the one who may identify YOU as the previous INVADER of YOUR home.

            This wasn’t an isolated incident. You could even say that these two were TEMPTING the homeowners to PROVIDE themselves with DEADLY FORCE by invading their home the FIRST TIME.

          • finishstrongdoc

            As to the “Home” metaphor, yes your womb is a home and you invited a potential third (or fourth or fifth) PERSON INTO YOUR home whenever you have consensual sex, contracepted or not (contraception fails, too), and then YOU are responsible for loving that NEW PERSON just as much as yourself.
            “Love your neighbor as you would want them to love you.”
            ~The Golden Rule~

            The only time my “Home” metaphor is “half-baked” is when it applies to the “half-baked” way people think of the human person in the womb.

          • ACV2233

            This is why so many young kids turn to a life that ends up with them in prison or dead on a strangers floor. Rather than having parents who warn them and raise them not to invade homes or terrorize innocent people, there are people like Sardis who do nothing but make excuses for criminal behavior. Perhaps if Sardis spent half as much time teaching kids to obey the law there wouldn’t be so many kids shot by their terrorized victims.

          • Sardis

            Perhaps if more grown-ups practiced restraint, were somehow vetted before being allowed to own weapons that can instantly take lives, were educated on other non-deadly ways of defending oneself, and in general were not so eager for the chance to use the heat they’ve been packing, fewer kids would be shot by adult “victims.”

          • zabs

            Criminals will not stop being criminals because you pee on yourself or make new laws or cry a lot.

          • zabs

            Sardis, why don’t you open your home to every criminal and then talk? hm? Why don’t you leave your windows and doors open and post a sign that says you don’t think criminals deserve to be caught. Then maybe when you’ve been burglarized, raped or worse, you can sing kumbaya with the person who did it to you.

          • Sardis

            Criminals deserve to be caught and punished. That’s not the same as “dead.”

          • Bill Groves

            I am a peaceful man. I live quietly and bother no one. But if you screw with me I will fight back, and if you enter my home uninvited, you will be carried out. I don’t care how old you are, what race you are, or what disadvantage childhood you profess. I will use deadly force to protect my home and family.

          • Sardis

            Anything can happen to anyone at any time. You could bother no one and be attacked on the street. People who are obsessed with gun-ownership as a home self-defense mechanism are living in an adolescent fantasy action-hero world. The reality is that when there’s a gun at home, it’s more likely to be used by someone who resides in the home for a suicide than it ever is to be used to repel a home invasion. By having a gun at home, you’re more likely to endanger yourself or your family than you are to use it on the burglar you always secretly hope will come inside.

          • finishstrongdoc

            Meanwhile, people’s lives are being protected by citizens with firearms every day. People carry firearms every day in the hundreds of thousands without incident. Where are the reports of all these crime victims being shot by their own firearms every day?

            Thugs with adolescent fantasies about killing anyone that looks sideways at them? That happens. It happens mostly in places where only the thugs carry weapons. They use the firearm for power and control. Just like our government would use the LACK of firearms in our PEACEFUL homes to TAKE more power to themselves.

            The Second protects the First.

          • Christopher Walls

            Except in this case it was used to protect the gun owners life!!! WONDERLAND IS WAITING FOR YOU TO RETURN!!!!!

          • cojar

            Your analogy is erroneous. The baby does not invade the mother’s “home” (body), the mother invites the baby in by her choice. It is no different than me inviting a guest into my home and then murdering them. By your logic, that would be alright! You are a very sick and twisted individual. Not only that, you are dangerous to a free society.

          • Sardis

            I am sick, twisted, and dangerous to a free society for questioning the necessity of two teenage boys being shot and killed? You certainly have an interesting take on what this society needs.

          • zabs

            Yes, because instead of calling out the crime as a bad thing, you are boohooing they got caught. They had a choice. They could have avoided being shot by staying home.

            You are not crying for the elderly woman who had no choice but to suffer their terrorism, or live in fear, you evidently do not care about what she had to go through, or felt, as you are blatantly against her defending her own home.

            Yes, your priorities are TWISTED and SICK.

          • Sardis

            Like the editor who posted this article, you’re using the word “terrorism” to get a rise out of people and inflame passions. This is burglary. Our criminal justice system has procedures and mechanisms for publishing minors who commit a crime of this nature. If the widow had to shoot these kids to save her life, then she sadly did what she had to do. Saying that these kids shouldn’t have been shot if it wasn’t necessary doesn’t make me “TWISTED” or “SICK.” It means I have a little compassion for a couple of children, even those embarking down the wrong path. Am I sorrow the widow was in this situation? Of course, but that changes nothing.

          • Elliott Whitlow

            I think perhaps we are of the same general mindset but using different wording..

            In general every life is equal, except cops, their lives are LESS important than mine, mainly because I pay them to take those risks and they accepted the job willingly.. With that said, your life and mine are just as valuable, right up until the moment you decide that you can commit a criminal act on me and mine, then your life is devalued. And if you put my life in danger I will sacrifice yours instantly if I feel I have to.

            You invade my home and you have only one option, COMPLIANCE, IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETE, you move your hands or body in any way you aren’t commanded to and your chances of surviving drops to something approaching ZERO. I WILL survive the encounter, you MAY..

          • Cynthia McBride

            You break into someone’s home, you take the chance of not coming out alive! Simple as that!

          • Christopher Walls

            So what you are saying is an eye for an eye right..? Im guessing you want the old folks to go to these kids home and break in right!!?? Please do me a favor and move to Wonderland things would go a lot easier for you there!!! But i think even there you would complain that the rainbow shouldn’t go away because the sun dried it out before it had a chance to be some happy fairytale glorified memory!!!

          • American Infidel

            When someone breaks into your house and you’re unarmed, are you going to say, THIS IS A GUN FREE HOUSE, PLEASE LEAVE.?

          • Bill Groves

            Breaking into someones home is a violent felony

          • Sardis

            Hurting someone, or attempting to hurt someone, is violent.

          • Mephis Stopheles

            The difference isn’t violence. It is choice. The criminal chose to create that situation with known consequences. The victim didn’t. The victim has a split second to react to the situation and weigh the consequences.

          • Sardisinwndrlnd

            It was only non violent because she had a gun in his face. Unless you assume the guy was gonna come in and have tea with her while he was taking her stuff.

          • Sardis

            For all you know, the teens’ plan was to run away if anyone caught them in the act but were shot before they could escape. Most burglaries are actually quick snatch-and-run types of crimes.

            You can’t assume these kids deserved bullets. I’m not saying this to defend them, but rather I’m cautioning you against leaping to conclusions one way or another without all the facts.

          • Sardisinwndrlnd

            And for all YOU know, it was the teens plan to beat her to death or shoot her! Why are you defending these criminals so hard over the law abiding, innocent citizen? Burglaries turn violent ALL THE TIME. You CANT assume these kids weren’t planning on assaulting or even killing that woman.

          • cojar

            Why don’t you give your speeches to the criminals who murder people? I take it that you think abortion is okay too?

          • drdgonflyr

            I’m sure that the person breaking into your home had no priority for your life. You are such a sad person for your belief. Let me ask you if you had a small child at home and someone broke in, would you use lethal force to protect that child, or just use your mouth. You talk big, but you didn’t walk in their shoes.

          • ACV2233

            That’s the risk those little punks took when they decided to go down the criminal path. Too bad two kids are dead but that woman and her family had every right to shoot to kill when confronted by criminals in her house.

          • cojar

            Why not ask the guy with the machete this question?

          • American Infidel

            Well, when someone breaks into your house and he has a MACHETE….you going to wound him? DOUBLE TAP HIS ASS.

          • raven1041

            Please post your address so more young teens will have a place to carry out their stupid teenage shenanigans before they decide to turn their lives around.

          • Cynthia McBride

            Who cares if she did kill the POS? You have misplaced sympathy. I am going to sympathize with the INNOCENT, like a three year old dying of cancer, not a couple of POS thugs who hurt people! The parents of these thugs were probably just as dumb as you!

          • Sardis

            I’d happily lock the key on door of the burglar’s jail cell. I wouldn’t presume to decide I had the right to kill somebody because I could, even if that person had wronged me first. Take the higher road if you can.

          • finishstrongdoc

            The higher road is to defend the rights of ALL to THEIR right to life, liberty and property by defending YOUR right to life, liberty and property when threatened. YOU,and NO ONE ELSE can know what COULD have happened, but what DID happen was ALL caused by the home invasion, NOT by the person who defended life, liberty and property.

            Without the right to defend ourselves, we would RIGHTLY be giving PERMISSION to those with LOWER moral values to just do whatever they want with us and with our loved ones’ lives, liberty and property.

            The High Road is the Right to Life. The Low Road is to deny people’s Right to Life, Liberty and Property, all of which are abolished, temporarily, when YOU invade THEIR LIVING SPACE.

          • cojar

            So how many babies have you aborted?

          • Sardis

            None? What I imagine you’re getting at you think I’m I’m pro-abortion and that the position you presume I take on abortion is inconsistent with my professed belief in the value of human life. One, even if I were a raging hypocrite in my personal beliefs, which I am not, that wouldn’t make the arguments I’ve been giving on this one subject any less valid. Two, I’d much rather a mother wait to have a baby until she is capable of properly parenting the child. Otherwise, the child is liable to grow up without parents to teach him right from wrong, he’ll end up breaking into someone’s apartment, and a gun-nut will ultimately abort him at the tender age of 14.

          • Sardis

            I’m sorry that you have such a limited sympathy reservoir that you have to spend time deciding who deserves it and how much of it you can spare.

          • Sardisinwndrlnd

            If only we were all as good as you.

        • Average_Joe56

          Going to bed one night I noticed people breaking into my shed. I called the police but was told no one was in the area to help,and someone would be there as soon as possible. A minute later I called them and said “no need to hurry, I’ve shot them.” Within minutes there were 6 cars, a helicopter and an armed response unit,and the burglars were caught red handed. The officer said “I thought you shot them”. I replied, “I thought you had no one available”.

      • Mephis Stopheles

        I’m glad they are dead. Less dumbass in the genepool. If you can’t understand why they were shot then you go live in a house that was burglarized more than once and see how well you sleep. You will be asking for a gun soon enough. It’s ok to vilify the victim as you aren’t the one scared, hurt or raped right?

        Perhaps it is the elderly ladies fault. She was there begging for it by owning a house. Same reason women in shorts deserve to be raped I suppose.

      • American Infidel

        I wonder what you would be saying if the woman and her son had been beaten or killed? “Oh, they didn’t mean to. They were planning on becoming good boys after just this one more burglary”?

        • Sardis

          If the burglars were out to beat or kill the woman and her son, then the shooter’s use of deadly force probably would have been justified. I don’t presume to know what really happened. Based on what I read, however, this sounds more like a case of young teenagers getting into stupid trouble than anything violent or malicious, even more so because the teens had broken in before, were young, and were unarmed (I think it’s a fair assumption that the article would have mentioned if they were armed).

          A petty thief at 14 is not necessarily a criminal forever. At that early age, it’s not too late to make up for or move past prior misdeeds, provided you live to have the opportunity.

          • American Infidel

            It’s good start to a life of crime. Are you REALLY a liberal?

          • ACV2233

            Sardis is CLEARLY a liberal. No responsibility for oneself ever.

          • Sardis

            I’m starting to regret my liberal views. With all the satisfaction the rest of you are taking in the deaths of a 14 and a 16 year old, you’re making the conservative club seem like a pretty fun place to be.

          • cojar

            You prefer to take satisfaction in the death of innocents, rather than that the guilty.

          • Sardis

            The only dead involved in this story were the two kids. Assuming that there was ever existed a threat to the lives of the homeowners is pure speculation.

          • zabs

            You think it’s okay to terrorize old people. SLIME. There was nothing PETTY about terrorizing an old lady. You were no help. Where were you when they were doing this? If you care so much, go stop all the criminals from being criminals, and sing kumbaya. If this happened to you, you would just pee on yourself and shake in fear.

          • Mephis Stopheles

            So now when in your home and scared you have to sit them down and ask them what their intentions are before defending yourself? That makes sense.

            When in the dark, at night, in what is supposed to be a safe place you are supposed to notice their age, intentions, and what weapons they have hidden in their pockets? Now do this while scared and in panic. You obviously have lived a gifted and blessed life if you can’t relate to the victims fear.

            Also, the government that told me to drive a tank and kill Iraqis is going to tell me I can’t shoot someone in my own house?

            Despite your age, intentions, or size when you break into someone house you willingly waive all rights to fairness as you removed it from the homeowner without their permission. Done.

          • motorcop

            As a retired cop (36 years) I can tell you a 14 or 16 year old kid can kill you just like a person of age.. saw it first hand! When someone breaks into your home you better prepared for the worst. Sardis you can speculate all day about what if but when you are in your home and some one is terrorizing you, you’ll do what you have to to survive!

          • MrsMork

            A petty thief at 14 would not choose to burglarize an occupied home. If the homeowner tried to stop them from taking things would the errant teenagers have just said oh sorry and left? I think not!

          • MrsMork

            And provided your parents hold you responsible for your actions, which obviously these parents don’t. And, how was this elderly woman to determine what their intent was? If someone is burglarizing my home I have to assume that they intend harm. To assume otherwise can be a tragic decision for the homeowner who had no choice in creating the situation.

          • Bill Groves

            There is a big difference between petty theft and breaking into an occupied home.

          • Pete Atkins

            Sardis, so at what point in the break in would you consider it now to be okay to use deadly force. Is it when they get close enough to grab them and punch them, Or is it when the are standing over them with a knife stabbing them because they are able to identify them to the police? You can, would of could of should of all day long. This was an elderly couple these were much stronger younger assailants. The couple only knew these people were not invited to their home in the middle of the night. They did not think they were coming in to drink tea and eat crumpets. Shenanigans is Toilet papering a house breaking and entering is not.

          • American Infidel

            And she KNEW those POS were not armed….after breaking in before? Gun in your hand or a cop on the way 20 minutes out. YOU make the choice SARDIS, and if you pick the wrong one, have you got your obituary already written?

      • Mark 2112

        typical liberal — blame the victim. break into my house, be prepared to leave in a body bag.

      • val

        Yea right like they caught them the first time they broke into the same womans house….She had every right to do what she did. Sad that such young boys have totally wasted their lives, but, that is not the elderly woman’s fault by any means.

        • Sardis

          No one’s blaming a victim. It is tragic, however, that two children died because of their poor judgment. Saying what would have happened had there been no gun is of course speculation–but it’s sad to think that two deaths could have been avoided. What those kids did was wrong, but it doesn’t merit a death sentence.

          • Mephis Stopheles

            Then you let your daughter breed with these kids if you are so fond of keeping that kind of stupidity in the genepool. Add them to your legacy.

          • Sardis

            Our legal system is not based on eugenics. Who these kids would “breed” with is neither your concern nor mine. I will point out that they were humans, not animals, and that “breed” isn’t really the proper or appropriate term.

            I will say I am appalled about how many people appear to be so happy that two teenagers they never met are dead. I guess the road to what you imagine as your perfect Constitution-loving America must be paved with the corpses of stupid teenagers, huh?

          • Mephis Stopheles

            I never met them And if they weren’t horrible people scarring innocent elderly people then I never would have. They were animals. You want to divide humans from animals? Humans follow the laws of society they are part of. Wolves and vultures are animals that prey on the weak. I am appalled at how willing you are to risk the lives of good people to protect two people that have shown they don’t care about them, you, or their family. I stand by my words with actions. Actions like NOT being a criminal and NOT hurting the innocent. They picked their fate and changed the fate of others. That is unfair and not allowed. When you are threatened or worse lets see what actions you feel are allowed. Until then you are just here condoning the hurt they caused on a poor old lady. No. You may think you are being a bleeding heart for two wayward kids but you are just helping to vilify the victims.

          • Sardis

            We have a criminal justice system because there are all sorts of other ways to punish wrongdoing besides shooting the wrongdoers. Regretting that two young kids died when they were still young enough to change their paths, doesn’t make me a “bleeding heart,” and it doesn’t mean I’m vilifying anybody. It just means I value human life more than I value an opportunity to scratch my itchy trigger finger.

          • Mephis Stopheles

            I don’t think that old lady was sitting in her house polishing a gun just praying someone broke in so she could use it. She was scared and if she wanted on the justice system she could very well be the one dead. Many homicides happen because petty thieves find out they aren’t alone and kill with witness. They didn’t plan to kill but feel its a small level of escalation in the moment. Until you can prove those to repeat villains aren’t capable of murder they do not deserve to be protected from their victim.So the two options you have with here are legislate to ensure the innocent die in their house out of fear of hurting a felon or giving people the right to defend themselves when in danger.

            Go ahead and cry for those kids…they made the choice to put themselves into a situation where the consequences include prison or death. The old woman was just sleeping innocently. You waste your sympathy on the ones that caused the pain for the homeowner, her scared and worried family, the kids concerned family, the neighborhood. Two people hurt many and they died for it. Its a good lesson to the next two. You should send your sympathy to the elderly woman that not only was robbed but has to know someone was killed in her house. You should cry for her children and grandchildren that had to fret and worry after the first two robberies and now have to watch Grannie weep over what was forced upon her.Cry for the wife and kids of their dad that had to go spend nights at his moms house because someone broke into her house twice by what could be meddlesome kids or angry crackheads, but now his wife and kids are alone and unprotected if some rapist decides their house looks yummy while dad is gone.

            When you break the law you accept the unknown series of events that will happen next.

          • Sardis

            “When you break the law you accept the unknown series of events that will happen next.”

            Yes and no. It comes down to what’s reasonable. Was the force used against those two boys reasonable? I don’t think either of us know well enough what happened to be sure. My point has consistently been that it’s a shame too kids died before they were finished growing up and that it’d be especially terrible if those deaths were unnecessary.

            As far as itchy trigger fingers are concerned, if there’s a gun around, it has a way of getting used, whether or not it was needed in the first place.

          • finishstrongdoc

            Absurd. You presume to know what was on the mind and in the heart of someone whose house had previously been invaded. More likely, no “itchy trigger finger” was being “scratched”, but abject terror was being de-escalated, a death threat was being eliminated out of total and abject terror, provided by home invaders.Your argument to the casual attitude towards life taken by the homeowners is flawed and unlikely at best, foolish at worst.

          • finishstrongdoc

            No one is “happy” that two teenagers are dead. I personally am happy that FEWER teenagers will PROBABLY NOT DIE because these two were killed while committing a felony. I personally am happy that the people living in that home survived what could have gone very badly for them.

            It would be completely absurd to now want the Second Amendment to be abolished because two teenagers broke the law, invaded the peace of a peaceful home, brought violence, threat of death and terror into a peaceful and presented themselves as potential deadly threats to do harm others.

            MORE teenagers will die IF the Second Amendment is abolished because teenagers haven’t the self-control of adults, and they will go on rages and rampages because they will feel MORE secure than their potential victims, because their potential victims won’t be armed.

            Remember, previous social experiments involving life and death of the unborn resulted in MORE deaths of American citizens, not fewer. MORE than 55 million and counting. And even MORE DEAD women from the abortion procedure. Leftist social engineering projects makes victims of us all.

          • Sardis

            Who said anything about abolishing the Second Amendment? And plenty of your peers seem to be happy that two teenagers are dead. To quote one post: “I’m glad they are dead.”

            The greatest threat to the Second Amendment is the scary gun fetishists who leap to assume that that every time a gun is used, its use is justified. They destroy the credibility of the 2nd Amendment’s more reasonable defenders.

          • finishstrongdoc

            Well, until all men become as good as angels, we’ll just have to find ways to protect ourselves against the lawless ones who want to take what isn’t theirs, and that will require some way to keep the weakest from being taken advantage of by the strongest and meanest. Arming oneself isn’t a bad idea when you look at it that way. I hate guns, but I’d hate it even more if I needed one and didn’t have one.

      • Dee

        At least one of these boys had by the evidence against in the finger prints previously found in the home had broken in before. These kids did not respect other people, their property, or their rights. You do not turn that around in juvie. The person who shot these kids was within their rights and the family of the kids needs to take responsibility for not teaching their children right from wrong, to respect others and others property. This whole thing about protect the poor child no matter how dangerous they are is wrong and it what has led to so many youths killing others.

        • Sardis

          So, what? If you find a kid who’s broken into a home, he or she deserves to be taken out back and shot? There’s no such thing as redemption? A 14 year old is as responsible for his mistakes as a 40 year old?

          You talk about youths killing others. But really, in recent months the news has been full of stories of gun-happy adults killing youths. I hope this isn’t one more of those stories, and that the shooter really did think there was a threat to her life.

          • thrillbot

            Absolutely ridiculous comment. These idiots weren’t taken out back and shot. THAT would be murder. They were shot during the commission of a home invasion. You’re not the intellectual you think you are.

          • Sardis

            It doesn’t take an intellectual to figure that the unnecessary death of young teenagers is a tragedy. I can’t pass judgment on the shooter without knowing more about the circumstances of this shooting than the article gives us–all I can say is that it’s a shame two kids had to die. If the shooter had a reasonable fear of being physically attacked, then using her gun on the kids may have been justified.

            My comment about “being taken out back and shot” is a response to your message that there was no way these kids could have turned their lives around. If that were true, and these kids were dangerous felons and ruined for life, why not take them out to the back and shoot them? After all, they clearly deserved to die. Examine the unforgiving implications of your own argument.

      • Stephen Peele

        lose the limp hypotheticals…they could have brought an axe with them and raped and murdered them too….you take chances with your own life…

      • Stephen Peele

        for clarity, what we applaud is the innocent and elderly not falling victim to the wayward…you want to help the wayward, do that…like the rest of us, but do not blame them for protecting their own lives…

      • Kevin

        Sardis, feel free to tell me you still feel the same when they’re standing, uninvited, in YOUR bedroom at 3AM. I can feel sympathy for the mother, and yes, it’s a real shame she didn’t raise her kid to allow for the rights and property of others.

      • Reverend Earl

        What an ignorant idiot Sardis, you should hear the 911 call, the Lady was terrified for her life. Yeah the were 14 and 16 and already had time to turn their lives around. This was the third time her house was broken into, this time she was home with her son, who knows where it could have gone. We do know however how it could have gone had these boys turned their lives around before they broke into her house to steal !

      • John Bender

        sardis, you are assuming your own end to what MIGHT have happened, no one know’s what the teans MAY have done, but to condone someone for defending their homes and posessions is ridiculous!

      • Fred Beggs

        So, where do you live? Let me know the address. My point is this. It is one thing to rob a house when they are not home but another when they are home. You should share your address right here because Hey I might get caught. You will hear me rustling through your personal belongings and never knowing if I may have grander ideas. It is called terrorism.

        • Sardis

          It’s actually called burglary. While it’s very scary, even terrifying, to be at home during a burglary, it is not terrorism. Terrorism is something else. Trumping up what happened with a provocative term doesn’t make your argument any stronger.

          As I’ve said, and as I’ll say again, I don’t know enough about what happened to say whether the shooter reasonably believed he/she was in danger of being attacked and hurt or killed. Neither do you. What I do know is that it’s a tragedy that two wayward kids are dead. If it could have been avoided, it should have been.

          Other commenters seem quick to jump on me for vilifying the poor widow, something which I alas have not done.

          • DJM2142

            Wrong. It’s not just a ‘provocative term’

            From webster:
            Definition #2 of terrorism

            2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

            The definition of terrorize:

            1: to fill with terror or anxiety : scare

            2 : to coerce by threat or violence

          • Sardis

            Oh don’t be silly. We all know what “terrorism” means to Americans these days, and it’s more than just the act of scaring someone. Try renaming an amusement park’s “Haunted House” to the “Terrorism House” and see what happens.

          • DJM2142

            Just pointing out that Words Mean Things.
            Just because media and politicians are trying to brainwash us all into thinking certain words only mean one thing doesn’t mean we have to believe it.
            Pretty sure there’s a Terror House out there somewhere. Popular too…

          • Sardis

            I can associate the word “terrorism” with whatever I want, I guess. Creepy clowns, string beans, bad drivers. I can even pat myself on the back, saying that I am one of the chosen few who’d avoided being brainwashed into believing what the vast majority of the country thinks it means.

            Or I could simply acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans associate terrorism with things like 9/11, bombs, radical Islam, etc. If you believe that “terrorism” isn’t a provocative word, with a unique connotation used to get a rise out of people, that it’s simply another synonym for being scary, then you’re just being dense.

            I bet “Terror House” wouldn’t be so popular if its name was changed to “Terrorism House.”

            Though I hate to keep on arguing such a silly point, I do have to point out that the modern Merriam-Webster dictionary offers this definition:

            “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal”

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

          • DJM2142

            Re read my post where I say “It’s not just a ‘provocative term’

      • DJM2142

        Apparently you haven’t heard of those cases where people break into homes and shoot/stab/beat any occupants they find?
        A homeowner never knows what a burglar will do.
        And so if they didn’t get shot they probably would have kept coming back for an easy target and terrorizing this woman for god knows how long.
        Doesn’t matter how old you are if you make a choice to turn to crime then you have to be prepared for the consequences.

      • Karla Moseley

        14 and 16 years old is old enough to KNOW BETTER; old enough to know what they were doing is wrong. They did this repeatedly to the same victims. They got what they deserved.

      • Tony d

        Sardis, How the hell is a terrorized elderly person ( or anyone for that matter) going to know these repeat offenders were ‘wayward youths’ that needed guidance etc….they saw them for what they were…home invaders and protected themselves accordingly.
        The criminals families always blame everyone else for this type of conclusion, but never seem to admit they should know what their kids are doing, or have raised them to understand consequence.
        Tony d

      • Jason Kilgore

        sure sardis, and if I had a tail I would be a horse!

      • traitorhater

        A shame that the same thing doesn’t happen to you. They break in your house and they know the risk that they could be killed. What do you do when they start kicking in the locked door of the room that you’re inside, say hello?

      • Just HOW MANY hypotheticals can you work into your feel-good scenario? If..if…if..if!

        Here is something you can take to the bank: IF the kids weren’t criminals they wouldn’t have been shot!

        • Sardis

          Any substantive comment any of us make about this story is a hypothetical, because none of us were there and none of us know exactly what happened inside of that house. My point is, and consistently has been, that it’s a shame two kids died before they were finished growing up, and it would be especially terrible if their deaths could have been avoided. If the shooter was justified, then the shooter was justified, but no matter what, this whole story is a tragedy.

      • Danny Tozer

        hey Moron… this was the SECOND time they broke into this particular.. get that “SECOND” time. The police had the prints from the FIRST time and yet were unable to apprehend or prevent this from happening yet again. In my book.. they got what they deserved. PERIOD. And as for the parents and the siblings.. Boo Freaking Hoo, lets cry over the fact that they raised miscreants who have no regard for another person. NOT. Stop being a bleeding heart liberal and think about how you would feel if this was your elderly relative for a second.

        • Sardis

          My elderly relative would probably resort to pointing a gun at two kids and killing each of them as the very last of last resorts.

      • Jack Meihoff

        The parents of the teens had plenty of time to teach them not to be criminals but they failed to do their job … no one else has the responsibility of correcting criminal behavior of someone else’s children – if they commit a crime they must pay the price, no matter how high the cost…

      • YouDon’tKnowChit

        Or they would continue a life of crime and get more brazen and next time someone would not be so lucky, because these thugs would have a gun and the next home they entered and homeowner not have a gun would end up being dead instead of the thugs that deserved a bullet to the head. Thank goodness the thugs ended up dead and not the law abiding citizen.

      • Sam Bass

        Because they were in the wrong place, at the right time. This should happen more often. Screw courts, just kill the thieves.

      • cojar

        Most criminals start out as teenagers and don’t turn their lives around. How disgusting that you think people should have to hide in their own homes and allow themselves to be robbed? The boys had no business in this kid woman’s home.

      • cojar

        What are you? You actually think that this old woman should have to hide out in her own home and allow people who have no right to be there take her property? That’s why kids today don’t respect anyone or anything, they are taught that there won’t be consequences. There ARE and should be consequences.

      • drdgonflyr

        who says calling the police and hoping they get there in time to catch said thieves. Sardis you are crazy. If they broke into your home what would you do. beg them to leave. Oh yeah tell them to stay right there while you call the police. Police are only for after the fact. Guns are for the present. You have no idea if the person breaking into your home will kill you or worse yet hurt you so bad you wish you were dead. I agree totally with what this person did. Those kids will never do it again.

      • banger377

        You say “most likely”. How do you know that. There are a lot of trusting and “hopeful” people out there in graves, because the didn’t recognize a lethal threat.

        Trusting a mugger to do the “right thing” is a fools choice. Don’t be a pu55y, be a man and defend yourself and your family.

      • Just me

        Bullshit! They got away with it once before, and tried it again. If caught, they would have (maybe) been reprimanded, (maybe) in a juvenile detention center, and (most likely) free to walk out walk out with no record and do it all over again. Killed? Problem solved, without wasting the taxpayer’s money.

      • Elliott Whitlow

        Hold on there. Applauding them being shot and not having any issue with the outcome are VERY different things.
        Sometimes the mistakes are bigger than you realize and the punishment is more than you intended, that is obviously the case here. At least one of them robbed this place before and decided he’d go again and it cost him BIG. He already violated these people once, what about their peace to not get robbed periodically?
        You make a point about their ages, and I get it, its sad, but you need to face some hard truths, sometimes you don’t get to turn your life around because you screwed up bad enough in the now that that is no longer possible. Could they have straightened out, maybe, but I think the more likely outcome was career criminals.

        • Sardis

          Who knows what they would have been? That’s one of the saddest things about it. I don’t know if their deaths could have been avoided. None of us commenting here do. These kids were minors, and they didn’t murder, rape, or hurt anybody at all. If we had the power to control the outcome of their burglary, the outcome shouldn’t have been their deaths.

          I’m sure many of you would have dismissed this man as a career criminal too, thirteen years ago.
          http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/us/missouri-delayed-imprisonment/

          • Elliott Whitlow

            I am familiar with his case and I applaud him turning his life around, and that they have released him for time served.

            However, given the recidivism rates my money would not have been on him, and had he been killed at the time my position would be the same and rightly so.

            Minors committing very adult crimes, let us not lose site of that. Occupied home burglaries are VERY dangerous for all involved. Personally I would ALWAYS assume that when push comes to shove that they WOULD hurt me, and given that they would be fired on until the threat ended. You aren’t going to check ID to see how old they are. You are minimizing how dangerous and unpredictable occupied home robberies are, we don’t get to sit back with all the facts and say that the homeowner was wrong. Look at it from their perspective for a minute and stop focusing on the dead. Think about the situation in the house at the moment they were caught. I read your reply and see you trying to minimize the crime being committed, THIS is inherently a violent crime even if nobody physically gets injured, these people’s home was invaded, not once BUT TWICE. How do you go to sleep at night with that hanging over you?

            We DO know that their deaths could have been prevented, the EASIEST possible way, DON’T COMMIT ROBBERIES and your chances of getting killed drop rather substantially..

            As I said, some mistakes cost you more than you wanted and some cost you your life. These criminals chose to go into a home, they are responsible for the outcome and ONLY them.

            I’m sorry for the families that they are dead but blame needs to be assigned to the correct people. Had they not violated these people they wouldn’t be dead.

      • paratrooper_us

        Just like the police caught them after the last time they committed the same crime at the same house. You give too much credit to what Law Enforcement can do.

        This was bound to happen sooner or later to these two thieves. It was never a question of if, it was a question of when, and how long down the road when confronted, would they have killed one of their victims, an innocent person.

      • Alvin York

        Or found dead. You Know it all liberals think you understand other people minds. Ok, you wake up to sound of people breaking in. Its dark and you don’t know why they are there. You can assume they are either their to commit horrible crimes against you and your family or what i bet you would do and assume they are their to find a good father figure to help turn their life around.

        You break into my house you will be on the business end of a Remington 870 with 00 buck loaded in the chamber and tube. My ammo is expensive so you want get a warning shot.

      • willyman

        so they have no responsibility for their own actions, just mind boggling amazing
        consequences come with actions taken, if you are violating someone, you have your rewardIm not applauding the shootings,I am the stand and deliver,America is being held hostage,it is time to take back our town,cities and our nation

      • Miss Diane

        You watch too much TV ! In the real world, these boys broke into a vulnerable elderly persons home, not once but twice ! Those people had every right to defend their lives and property. It is the parents of these boys that should be held accountable for the lack of supervision and not raising these children to be productive human beings, not predators. It is sad that these boys lost their lives. This story could have ended where these boys not only robbed but beat the occupants of the house to death, it happens all the time ! I dont blame these people one bit ! I imagine the poor lady was scared to death, tired of being victimized for the second time and they were only trying to protect themselves !

      • susan5042

        Really? And how many times should she have let them do that? They had already broke in before. Maybe we should just all let anyone do what ever the hell they want with our property and bodies right? You’re nothing but a dolt. You are ignorant of your rights and to the world of takers. You go ahead and let them have your hard earned possessions! As for me, I will protect myself, my family and what’s mine.

      • Ruth May Cothron

        Are you not comprehending the story correctly? They broke in more than once….too bad they didn’t get capped the first time then the lady would not have had constant fear in her life.

      • Todd Shearer

        Or, the woman would have tried to get to her bedroom, fallen and been killed by a couple of kids who were going to get in trouble if she called the cops. Better to shut up the witness…
        or
        The kids break in an steal a couple of things. The old woman, having been burgled twice spends the remainder of her years living in fear of being a victim. The kids turn their lives around but the old woman lives a traumatized remainder of her life. At least now she knows she can fight back.

      • DesertPatriot

        Why do you assume they would have been caught and prosecuted? They did the same thing before without any prosecution. I believe the national gene pool has just been improved.

      • charlie

        because they were criminals and their family did not try to turm them around, they protected their evil schemes. glad they are dead, not they cannot attack nay more old folks

      • T-Bone

        How did the homeowner or her brother know their age or their intent to harm? All they knew was an intruder was in their home. It’s is sad and unfortunate that they repeatedly behaved in a manner that caused their demise but they chose their path. Darwinism is alive and well.

      • sixpackdan

        Sardis after reading all or your responses you are either a screamming un informed liberal or a paid stooge. Im guessing paid internet stooge.

        • Average_Joe56

          Sardis is a full fledged “living under a bridge”, TROLL!!!

        • Sardis

          What is a paid internet stooge? Are you saying I can get paid for arguing with you all? Wow, please let me know how I could do that.

          As to a “screaming un-informed liberal,” I think I’ve explained myself pretty well throughout my comments, and I’ve even cited a few peer-reviewed studies on gun use and safety. Mostly, I’ve been called a liberal, and had these scholarly sources dismissed as being liberal as well. I challenge someone to actually tell me why I am wrong, instead of internet-shouting at me.

          • Average_Joe56

            ” Mostly, I’ve been called a liberal, and had these scholarly sources dismissed as being liberal as well.”

            The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require scholarship.

            Robert A. Heinlein

            So much for your …..”scholarly sources”

          • Sardis

            Way to debunk peer reviewed research studies with a single quote from a science fiction novelist. You show ’em!

            Here are some of the studies you totally just destroyed.
            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

            Who needs controlled scientific research when we have you as the arbiter of what does or does not make sense!

          • Average_Joe56

            You do of course realize that you can glean any outcome that you choose from a “study”…depending on parameters used to obtain the results that you want…right? Deflecting my post, does not answer my question…nor does it prove your left leaning, liberally slanted “Study”….to be in fact true….simply an opinion rendered by folks who were able to memorize what they were taught and pass a test…to get a piece of paper that says, “I’m smart”. Just because they memorized something, doesn’t mean that they are smart…or that the information that they memorized …is even true… only that they memorized it.
            While it is nice that your Scholarly sources have degrees…it might be better if they had some common sense.
            You know, Obama is a Constitutional Scholar…that has a degree….and still doesn’t understand the document that he took an oath to uphold….go figure….Scholarly? My arse…I call BS…….
            Admit it…you are simply a paid troll…with talking points and scholarly studies. Before you reply, don’t bother. I put no stock in your deluded banter and skewed studies…deal with it and move along…you are simply wasting your time from this point on…because you’ve lost your audience… me.

          • Sardis

            I challenged someone to tell me why I was wrong.

            First, you answered with a quotation from a science fiction novelist.

            Then, you tell me that the studies I cited are wrong because studies can be biased because academics don’t know what they’re talking about and only memorize information. Huh.

            I don’t think you’ve risen to the challenge, buddy.

          • Average_Joe56

            I see you also have reading comprehension problems…who would have thought?

      • eddie

        but sardis they had plenty of time to turn their lives around befor they burglarized someones home a 2ed time and they didn’t!! its a sad day for boys family but the boys got what they ask for!!… breaking into my home ( man or woman age wont matter ) will get you shoot!

      • Winston Smith

        GEE, I wish I had your crystal ball! “They’d just steal some stuff (that may be vital and nearly irreplaceable to a retired person) then trot on home with their booty. Naturally leaving the victim unharmed.” Hoodlums murder for a few bucks, a cellphone, a pair of sneakers … but they never kill the victims of their home invasions? REALLY?
        NO, it is NOT “cool” that someone got shot! BUT, the possibility that the perpetrators might get killed during a burglary did NOT just begin, yesterday! They KNEW it was a possibility LONG before they decided to commit their FELONIES!

      • machodog

        Yes, they had plenty of time to turn their lives around and they obviously chose not to.
        Bleeding hearts like you are the reason some of these young persons are emboldened to commit more crimes. Apparently their parents were bleeding hearts too, otherwise they would have taught their kids that there could be serious consequences to their criminal actions. THAT’S what would have saved their sorry lives.
        And how dare you suggest that the little old lady go cower in a bedroom. When the word finally runs the gamut that your criminal actions can cost you your life there’ll be less criminals pushing their luck.

      • rivahmitch

        How about because they were young thugs on the way to being bigger thugs. In such a circumstance, DEAD IS GOOD. They were scum and, given their families’ comments, they probably come from the same…. No regrets for the young thugs actions, no apologies to the elderly victim. Looks like the lineage is to blame.

      • Rattlerjake

        You have the right to chose to not defend yourself, just as I have the right to chose to do so. Just remember, when the crime comes to you, and you are defenseless, that was you choice. Of course when it’s over there’s a 50/50 chance you won’t be able to think about it.

      • Commenter

        Because they were preying on innocent people in their own homes. This was the 2nd time. They chose their actions and got their punishment. No more crimes from them. Good riddance.

      • Jessica Knorr

        I think this song says it best: My home is protected by the good Lord and a gun, and you might meet them both if you show up here unwelcome son. -Josh Turner Way Out Here.

        But you know try your luck. You might get out scott free but than again that home might be armed to the teeth and you just might be bagged & tagged

      • JerryBGoode

        What a stupid comment. How were the elderly couple supposed to know the age and intent of the burglars when they broke in? This is all just hindsight after you know what happened. Suppose instead that they had no gun and two robbers came in and stole all they had and then killed them to hide their crimes. Would anyone applaud their not having a gun to defend themselves?

      • Tewana Secumbah

        Liberal!

      • foxxybey

        Because everyone has a right to defend themselves against punks and thugs, I applaud the fact they got what they deserved.

      • Their being shot sets an example to warn others, and stops them from eventually breeding.

      • Chris

        Why aren’t more parents teaching their kids that getting shot and killed is a very real possibility for doing something like breaking into a home or holding up a convenience store? Why don’t more kids understand how dangerous and lethal a gun can be when it’s used against them?

        It would have been nice if the kids hadn’t been shot and killed. But it would have been nicer if they hadn’t been breaking into homes in the first place.

        The fearful homeowner is not the responsible party for these boy’s deaths – the boys themselves took on that possibility when they decided to break into her house. They alone are responsible for initiating the chain of events that lead to their deaths.

        If these boys family really wants their regrettable – but understandable – deaths to be anything other than a statistic, they need to be holding them up as an example to the boys peers of the very real potential consequences of crime, and not crying how they shouldn’t have been shot. THAT will save more lives than any gun law ever will

        Liberty Requires Responsibility.

      • insaney

        They deserved to be shot because these punks don’t just ” turn their lives around”. This elderly couple saved the lives of future victims of this pond scum, I am sure.

      • Terrylee

        Go on believing that they would have turned their lives around, Sardis, at the age of 14 & 16 one knows what is right or wrong.. And yes lock yourself in the Bathroom while your home is being burglarized, and next time lock yourself in the basement, and then the attic.
        Sardi, the only thing I lock is my weapon, and then when a thug or thugs invade my home and privacy of it I unlock it.

      • oldmo

        I always will. Teenagers like that turn their lives into gang members and real criminals. A cockroach is a cockroach is a cockroach no matter the age. If they had been caught and sent to jail, what then ? They would learn prom the real pros.

      • Phil Bronner

        It’s not that anyone applauds their being shot…..what IS worthy of applause is that their crime spree of felonies and terror is at an end….therefore….any POTENTIAL victims can now rest easy that two dirtbags who had absolutely no respect for others or their property were removed, with extreme prejudice, from the society they preyed upon.
        Or, if you’re a liberal, and are continually spouting things “scientific”..you could just chalk it up to Darwinism…..

      • Jeanne Stotler

        he lady called the Police on 2 previous occasions and they arrived after the kids had left, it takes 20 min., min.. for the PD to arrive, in that time they could have killed her, they sure would have gotten away with their loot.

      • American Infidel

        And when someone breaks into your house armed, and you’re not, you gonna say, WAIT, I HAVE TO CALL THE POLICE!

      • enrique

        Sardis , I guess you have never had some one break into your home . A person feels violated and at our age , some of us can not fight back . I can and I will use any and all force needed to protect my family and my self.

      • Taking care of business!

        Most likely? MOST LIKELY? That’s a leap of faith no one can risk. And though posters are acknowledging she was justified in her actions, I don’t think anyone would be crass enough to “applaud” the shooting.

    • Kenneth Rogers

      Yet democrats want to take the right to defend our homes away…

    • Phillip_in_TX

      Well, they did learn one thing. They learned they broke into the wrong house.

  • Dean Gilbert

    The elderly woman should be suing the kids parents for letting these idiots run loose and terrorize people by breaking the law and stealing what doesn’t belong to them.

  • finishstrongdoc

    If only one of the home invaders had been killed and the other had been caught, he would be looking at felony murder charges right now.

  • AntiLies

    looking for someone to blame? start with the teens’ mother/parents.

  • AntiLies

    If I am ever forced to have to live with the burden of having killed a kid in self defense, rest assured I’m going to have PTSD and will be suing the kids’ parents for letting this tragedy happen to me.

  • Dottie Parsons-Harrison

    Their family should be apologizing not I condemning the actions of the elderly that were protecting themselves! Appalled, if you side with these little self entitled asdholes’ families, slap yourself! You’re a huge contributing factor to the idiocy that is our current state of being!

  • Marc Richardson

    If I ever get chosen as a victim of a crime of violence, it may well be the last thing the punk ever does, because I almost always carry a firearm and as a former Certified Firearm Instructor who knows self defense law, I will shoot to stop the felonious attack from progressing. If they perish as a result, it’s their own darn fault for choosing to commit a crime instead of focusing on their homework…

  • Karen Meador

    Sardis …. how many breaks should they be given … or should they have watied until they did kill someone in their home invasions.
    I’m sorry, had they pulled that crap in my house, they would have been shot there as well. This is what happens when you decide to break the law. You pay the consequences. Let’s go your route and say the woman did not have a gun, would they have beaten her up or to death then robbed her? I doubt she would have had time to go hide in the bedroom.
    Here’s another thought where are the freaking parents for these kids? Do you really have no idea what your child who is 14 or 16 is doing on a daily basis? Maybe … just maybe if parents would stop coddling their children and whoop their asses when needed we would not see as much of this going on as there is. Your child wants to scream child abuse and call children’s service … fine go ahead … let me know how that works out for you. Trust the foster homes that they would go to are not anything close to how good you have it at home.
    I’m sorry, those boys got what the deserved and it wasn’t even the first time they pulled that crap.

  • dikires eilerts

    Sounds like s huge nest. of parasites. Dont hear any of them. replacing goods or.damage. totsl proof parasitism is permission. to commit. criminal. acts. TWO MORE OF “,THEY COULD OF BEEN MY SONS OBSMAO STYLE,”

  • JokerKurt

    Saved us taxpayers from warehousing them in prison!!!! GREEEEAAATTT!!!

  • American Infidel

    What should have happened? Should the couple have sat them down and have a ‘SERIOUS TALK ABOUT THEIR MISBEHAVIOR”?

    • Sardis

      The couple should have called the police and then used their best judgment regarding necessary force. If it’s true that the shooter caught the burglars leaving the home and shot them in the back, in the doorway, that would be indefensible.

      • motorcop

        Indefensible? They put themselves in jepordy, if you break into my home I will NOT lock myself in a bedroom and hope they will steal a few things and leave! They would kick the door in and kill your ass! It is apparent you don’t live in Texas or own a gun. The death penalty IS a deterrent, these two will never do this again!

      • MKM

        It would seem that wherever they got shot in the home it was defensible. The police took the time to review the burglary and found no fault in the action of the Homeowner and her son. They followed the due course of the law. They defended their persons and property. The problem I consistently see is that youth feel that there is no consequences to their actions. Knockout games, home invasion, theft and joyriding. Here in Denver traveling in packs and beating people walking alone with baseball bats. There is always consequences for your actions. Two youths losing their lives finding that fact out is in fact sad. Sad, but not indefensible, or the wrong outcome. Coming to the defense of a wrongdoer who loses their life in the act of a crime that can incur the use of deadly force is not part of what our laws currently are and not what I believe the majority of our society wants to see in the future. We want the right to defend ourselves. We will do what we must to keep these rights.

      • American Infidel

        Would you rather have a gun in your hand or a cop on the way 10-20 minutes out?

  • finishstrongdoc

    A parent was recently arrested for taking more than his allotted three minutes to complain to the school board about the unsavory Common Core Curriculum reading assignments given to his daughter.

    Klebold and Harris of Columbine infamy had taken a course in “Death and Dying” at their school. Then they loaded up and went on a killing spree at the school.

    They used to have Gun Safety courses in high school. Kids brought guns to school and went out to the range and got certified. Now a kindergartner draws a picture of a gun and he gets suspended. Teaching kids that they have a right to use a firearm in self-defense is a lesson in civics, a lesson in self-control, and a lesson in respect for other’s rights to defend themselves with the same type of weapon you’re holding in your hands. The old “Equalizer.”

    Parents need to get involved in what’s going on with the indoctrination of their kids in school. You don’t encourage kids to dwell on death and sex in school. They are too young for that, and what happens when the kid goes on a rampage affects the whole community in one way or another. All a parent of a perpetrator can do then is say, “I’m sorry.” These kids usually end up dead at their own hands somehow anyway. And it’s because the state has taken over as parent of the kids and the state does a bad job of raising kids.

  • nope

    buuuuu huuu huuu sis better learn something from her punk ass brothers demise.

  • finishstrongdoc

    This is a lesson for all of us. The mentality that people don’t have a right to use deadly force when faced with a home invasion is a very unwise idea to spread around. Next thing you know, people will have to register their guns, many will be denied the “privilege” of being able to be “equal” to ANY force that MAY be brought INTO their home, thieves will know they can use a simple club to defend themselves if they are confronted during a home invasion….OR A GUN, and before you know it….Chicago!

    If laws stopped crime, we wouldn’t have criminals.
    If laws stopped bullets, we wouldn’t need guns.

  • Stephen Peele

    ignore them, perhaps if you raised them better they would be alive?? Not to say that life works out well all the time, but do not blame people being victimized for the evil in your kids….

  • Stephen Peele

    …people really think their rosy pictures are likely don’t they….imagine what would have happened if they broke in and found the couple helpless and decided to not just rob them but to rape and murder them…then what would you say???

    • Sardis

      That didn’t happen though. If the shooter had a reasonable expectation that it would have happened but for the shooting of his or her gun, then this can be marked down as self-defense, and it’s justifiable. Otherwise, it’s something else. Something that we as a society should not be cheering for.

  • Mephis Stopheles

    You know what? I have been here defending the victims the entire time and not being a good citizen and sympathizing with the dead kids family. So here I go…

    Its a real shame that old lady had the audacity to want to feel safe at night! How dare she!? I mean really! She took these two boys rights to terrorize a home and human away with a big mean ole gun! That is the most wrong and rude thing ever! Won’t someone think of it from the kids point of view? Look they saw the helpless sweet old lady and naturally thought about all the Precious Moments figurines that they just HAD to have. And its not fair to expect the kids to offer to buy them or even take them in trade from chores! that kind of behavior would lead to strong upstanding young men with morals and pride. NO! We MUST insist they do the easiest thing possible and just take what they want from whomever they want and do it with a self-absorbed air about them. I mean if they don’t learn how to be useless wastes of skin now how can we count on them to suck up welfare and prison taxes later?!?! That will ruin budgets in many counties! And what the heck was that elderly pair doing? I mean they had their crime-free life of working and raising good citizens and possibly helping the war effort, their time is done. Now if they were real humanitarians they would have shot themselves and saved those poor kids all the trouble of working up to a murder. Thats how you avoid crime!

  • Cecile Charles

    In the dark you see an outline, you don’t know if they are teens or not, all you see is criminals in your house. They were the ones who broke in. That they were shot? Hey, they should not have been there in the first place. There is no excuse for them being in the house.

  • avoiceinthewilderness

    “Justice was served,” said Robert Robinson.
    About says it all…..

  • Guest

    Personal responsibility. Not their house, not their stuff – they did not belong there and they were not invited. If you choose to break into someone else’s house you take a chance that they will defend themselves and you will get caught or worse. It’s personal responsibility plain and simple. Jeffery Dahmer was an SOB who deserved to die but, I wouldn’t feel bad for any idiot who might have broken into his home and ended up in the pot! You are responsible for your actions – so were these kids. If the same old lady had a few too many glasses of wine at bingo and ran them down on the way home people would be screaming for her to go to jail or die. It’s time to stop making excuses for bad behavior and allowing kids to grow up without understanding their are consequences to their actions.

  • EveLerieux

    Did these people know these kids? Did the kids know them? Sounds like a neighborhood where they knew each other and if that is the case then there is more to this story.

  • Doug Miller

    Yea Sardis maybe next time they would have beat her up for kicks. They chose it and they paid for it.

  • Phaedra

    I have checked out these two kids’ facebook pages and they were horrible kids! This mother and daughter need to apologize to the intended victims if anything! Glad the boys are dead, they would have been shot if they had broke in my place too.

  • Robert Mull

    If the kids did not want to be shot then they should have robbed a democrats house as they do not believe in having weapons to defend themselves. SO maybe all democrats should put signs on their lawns that say Gun free zone.

  • Sheryl Kierstead

    They won’t break in again will they. They deserved what they got!

  • weston777

    You won’t hear this one on national news because they weren’t black. HOW ABOUT MAKING THIS ONE NATIONAL NEWS CNN !!! Good going homeowners.

  • John Thompson

    I am sorry for the loss to the family but these fellows had it coming Lord forgive them? Wow what boldness. return trips to the poor old peoples home. some countries will cut your hand off fro stealing.. Muslims

  • Kumbayah

    Those parents need to be abjectly apologizing to the elderly couple and making restitution for what their boys did.

  • YouDon’tKnowChit

    Wait a minute. The teens were breaking into a home and yet this family has the gull to say that ‘They should not have been shot and killed?” this family should be apologizing to the Community for the actions of these two teens! How dare the family of these law breakers take it upon themselves to shame the folks for PROTECTING themselves. Listen up folks tell your kids that if they decide to commit a crime to expect to be injured, maimed OR killed, because homeowners have the RIGHT to protect themselves, their family and their property. If you want to live another day Obey the Law PERIOD.

  • Gun toting cracker

    Spread this story far and wide. People are tired of repeat offenders over and over again with police doing a tuff job. Oh, and one more thing, call police right away, don’t wait days…..

  • coolreasoning

    I’d sue the family for whatever it costs to clean up the biohazards left behind. It is not cheap to get your home professionally cleaned after an incident like this.

  • Rand0Mone

    It is tragic that they were killed, regardless of their foul behavior. But they brought it upon themselves. America is decaying into a “no consequences are fair” nation, with bleeding-heart, overly “PC” people coming up with every excuse in the book why criminals should not be subject to severe consequences. It is insane. Maybe now, other teens in the town will think twice about acts of larceny.
    I hope the state is not among those that prosecute self-defense and/or defense against home invasion. The past couple years, there are more and more incidents of people being prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned because they defended their home or their person. Who makes laws like that?!

  • Crews Giles

    I read the story, and others on this incident. The kids were leaving. The man shot, and kept shooting, until they were both dead. That does not work with any 21st Century law. It is not moral– and never has been.

    Being AFRAID does not justify killing two kids– or anyone else. Burglary does not justify killing. Reason to believe that you are, or another innocent is, in serious threat of life or serious bodily injury– alone– justifies the use of deadly force.

    If you own a weapon, you better prepare for this type of scenario, and be proficient enough to act reasonably. Murderous rage, vindictive slaughter, and panic are NOT examples of “reasonable.”

    By the way, “Terrorist” (in the headline) is not a synonymy of “Burglar.”

    That woman claimed she did not even know she had been burglarized– she thought they were TRING to break in the first time– she heard glass break, locked herself in the bathroom and called the police. They never saw each other. The police arrived to find they had been in and left– something she did not know.

    She was not “terrorized by the boys,” she became frightened upon learning she had her purse and keys stolen. Responsible gun-owners need to know that not only do you not kill persons for that, you do not PLAN to kill persons for that. Persons with a conscience do not WANT to kill a person for that.

    If they are leaving, and you do not know if they are armed or not, the thought needs to be, “Am I willing to risk my life to stop them, or take a life, for *stuff*?” A jury of your peers will decide if you chose wisely.

    I sympathize with the shooter (I have been in that situation) but if I sat on a grand jury, I would also indict him, based on what little is known.

    • coolreasoning

      “The kids were leaving”
      Please post the story where this is stated by the investigating authorities. I have not seen where they released any detailed information about the incident.

      • Crews Giles

        Duplicate post on your part– my answer, above, still stands.

    • finishstrongdoc

      You’re all over the place. You “sympathize with the shooter,” then say “little is known,” but you say you’d indict if you were on the Grand Jury, and yet you know the shooting was “murderous slaughter, vindictive, rampage” as the “kids were leaving.” You say the elderly lady “didn’t know she’d been burglarized” but knew she’d been burglarized because her purse and keys were stolen. You say “she was not terrorized by the boys,” but you don’t say how she could have had her fears de-escalated. What would a reasonable man assume the victims would do?

      If those boys had broken into that home before, THEY knew they’d broken into that home before and a reasonable man would say that constituted an intent on THEIR PART to escalate not just burglary, but to INCREASE the TERROR that results from ALL burglaries.

      A reasonable man would say those kids CAUSED their own DEATHS by burglarizing twice, thereby, ON THEIR OWN, caused the DEADLY FORCE and TERROR to EXIST in the LIVING QUARTERS of that particular home. Those kids terrorized THEMSELVES, they WERE the MURDEROUS RAMPAGE, THEMSELVES, THEY VICTIMIZED THEMSELVES.

      And the people in the home, NOW, and since the FIRST burglary, will ALWAYS feel terrorized because they were FORCED into the situation they were in. But at least they are alive.

      The law of self-preservation is PRIOR to all other rights and laws, and Grand Juries. If you feel your life is being under threat of burglars, again, you don’t have burglars, you have TERRORISTS. Terrorists who found the ultimate response to terror. What they got , they caused to happen. They killed themselves.

      • Crews Giles

        You need to re-read what I wrote and take your time.

        Little is known, but based on what we know, I would indict the shooter.
        Indict means to press charges– it does not mean find guilt. I did NOT say I knew why he did it. The examples I gave were of unreasonable justifications to shoot-to-kill, not a presumption of the shooters intentions– nor were those words available to be confused to mean what you claim.

        Reread those two, different, parts of what I wrote which you attempted to combine.into a new context of your own making.

        As for that lady not knowing, and then knowing, it is a time issue.

        When the boy(s) robed her the first tine, she was unaware they had ever entered the house, much less was she “terrorized” by them. Only after the police arrived did she discover her keys, purse, and some jewelry was missing. So where does the word “terrorize” come in? That was my point- and I made it well.

        In case you are still missing it, the editor added the headline with the word “terrorist.” Editors not authors, usually provide the headline– to sell, to intrigue, to incite, to elicit, etc.. Perhaps the fact that I know that, places me in a situation where the headline offends my reason rather than carries me away with emotion. Knowledge is power.

        I used that same control of knowledge and reason over emotion when I confronted more than one man burglarizing my home more than twenty years ago. That is why I can empathize with the man and still not agree with what he did. Having been in that situation, I know the emotional act, I know the reasonable act and I know the moral act– first hand. I fear he only knew the emotional act– thus an indictment is due. He seems to have acted out of emotion and not out of self-preservation. Only self-preservation counts when shooting with intent to kill. That is the law. It is also moral.

        Moral humans value human life more than possessions– even criminal human life. The ONLY time that creates a shoot-to-kill situation is when the criminal life can reasonable be understood to threaten other human life or significant physical harm (there is a better term for that, but it escapes me– something not so limited as “life or limb,” but very nearly the same)..

        Next…
        Fear and “terrorism” are not the same thing. Look them up.

        Terror is a form of fear.

        Terrorism is to make use of terror. A terrorIST is someone that makes use of terror.

        The burglars did not make use of terror. They made use of stealth– that is why they are called burglars.

        The editor, not the facts, introduced the word– probably so that it would show up in more search engines; but apparently, evoking an emotional assumption by many readers of the image of a the two teenagers brutalizing her– which did not happen.

        Being burglarized certainly will cause a person to feel insecure (she added a lock, put her home up for sale, asked her brother to come live with her– all reasonable responses to that fear) and depending upon her emotional state may have found being burglarized to be traumatic. But her fear, call it terror if you want, is not an issue. She did not shoot them.

        Her brother’s fear is what is in question. Did he have a reasonable fear that the two burglars were intending violence against his or another’s physical person AND was his ONLY means of stopping such a threat to use deadly force? I believe that is the “castle law” in most states- including California.

        Given that we LACK information that there was ANY physical contact or threat made (no mention of scuffle or even of words exchanged), and given that we DO have information that the two burglars were leaving, and that the man fired continually until both were dead– that is where the moral and legal QUESTION comes in.

        Again, I have been in that situation. I know the fear, I know the outrage. I get that. It does not allow me to kill. Not morally, and not legally.

        So, if you were under the mistaken impression that it does allow you to kill, brush up on your shooting skills, work through scenarios in which you can take control, or cover, or flight, so that you remain in the right.
        Not doing any of those things may land you in prison, and will; certainly work against those who believe private gun-ownership is a right, not only because the Bill of Rights grants them to us, but because humans need to take responsibility for their own security and the security of their neighbors– but to Hell with a purse, some jewelry and a set of car keys.

        That is NOT “all over the place,” that is consistency of thought.

        By the way, most gun owners hold an ideology against excessive police presence and excessive force. If we citizens are to be an ARMED citizenry, we better live by those rules and know “excessive” when we see it.

        You don’t get to shoot-to-kill a man for being a criminal. You only shoot-to-kill when it has the reasonable potential to save a life. (read those two sentences three times and then go to bed).

        • finishstrongdoc

          Until all men are angels, the reasonable person, even a teenage burglar, runs the risk of getting shot and killed by a person inside a LIVING space. If those kids had been beaten to death by a man wielding a frying pan or a metal pipe, it wouldn’t change the fact of life that people can overreact to any situation and feel like their lives are at stake, if not then, then later. People aren’t angels. Sad that those kids weren’t and sad that their killer wasn’t.

          Let the Grand Jury convene. Let the debt to society owed by the killer of two burglars be paid. Let the dead bury the dead.

          People will still arm themselves. Burglars will still look for the perfect victim. Commbox commenters will still think every shooting scenario will have a perfect balance of justice and mercy.

    • coolreasoning

      Once again:

      “The kids were leaving”
      Please post the story where this is stated by the investigating authorities. I have not seen where they released any detailed information about the incident.

      The only source I see for it is an “interested party”, the sister of one of the thieves. Please post the link so we can see what the police have released.
      Your whole posts is totally meaningless if that is not a fact.

      • Crews Giles

        It is not incumbent upon me to provide a source you will choose to accept. You are doing the choosing.

        You are setting yourself up for confirmation bias. You don’t want to be that person.

        I am making use of available information. You are denying that information’s validity because it it does not suit your ideology. Where did the sister get that information? Out of thin air? Police spoke to her family but not the press?

        I’m not the one with a bias.

        • coolreasoning

          What are your other sources for the contention that they were leaving? Other than the sister of one of the dead boys in this story?
          So your contention is that the police stated to her that the boys were leaving and were shot in the back. Then the police told every other news source that inquired that it was a justifiable shooting?
          So you from your computer know it was unjustified, and you are alleging a miscarriage of justice by the police who investigated and said it was justified?
          You’re calling the cops incompetent liars, and you say you don’t have bias?
          You are hilarious.

          • Crews Giles

            This is your third time to ask the same question. I answered it once. Slow down, breathe, and read. The answer is up where you asked it the first time.

            Remember, $225 an hour might be a good investment for you.

          • coolreasoning

            For the forth time you do not have “sources”. You have a single “source”, the statement of this girl in this story. If you had ANY OTHER SOURCES you would have posted them. But keep avoiding the question. I know it makes you look silly that you based your entire position on the off-the-cuff un-corroborated utterings of this girl. It makes me glad you have no involvement in law enforcement. Think of how much money would be wasted; this guy would already be up on charges based on what this girl who wasn’t there said, as opposed to what the police who investigated forwarded to your office. Stick to the mental health field; it’s all theory and there are no real metrics. A good fit for you.

          • Crews Giles

            What the girl said IS evidence.

            You deny the evidence without reasoning.

            That is because you made a judgment which serves your preconceived notion. I made no such judgment, and had no such preconceived notion.

            That makes me rational, and able to help.

            To help you more, I will need a credit number and billing address.

        • coolreasoning

          “That does not work with any 21st Century law.” Well I guess the SPD must be working from an earlier century because they have said at this time all indications are that it was justified and there will be no charges.
          Stand by your statements. It makes you look like a cop hating simpleton. Are you calling the cops liars or idiots? Which is it? Write your congressperson and have them investigated.
          You have figured out from your armchair that this 80 year old man is a gun happy homicidal maniac who set these kids up to be human targets and now the cops are out lying in public saying it looks justified.
          This must not stand!!!!

          • Crews Giles

            When you are down to putting words in my mouth and then arguing those words and scolding me for them, you are living in a fantasy-land and are arguing with yourself.

            I can help with that, but I charge $225 an hour.

          • coolreasoning

            “”That does not work with any 21st Century law.”” You did not say that? By stating a position diametrically opposed to what the police have already stated means that you do not accept their decision. Why do you not accept what they say? If you do not you must have a reason. But go ahead and deflect by making this about me and not about your absurd statement that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what the police have said. I guess you have access to information they don’t or are smarter than them. Or you believe they are corrupt.

        • coolreasoning

          “You are denying that information’s validity because it it does not suit your ideology”
          You are denying the investigating law enforcements agencies opinion that it was justified. I’ll go with their version, not your wild theory that they told the sister they were shot while retreating but then told the public it looked justified.
          Yeah, you are not denying anything important.

          • Crews Giles

            You do not know either way. I do not know either way.

            My theory is hardly “wild” that the police said as much to the family. It is a sticky point of law– many would not want to prosecute, but some will. I want to know more than we have available.

            The police are not saying much of anything, which strongly suggests that an investigation is being contemplated.

            I am not DENYING what law enforcement investigating said, I am stating that I have not seen a report that they have declared it was justified and so not under investigation.

            Police, however are not the final say.

            Prosecutors will have a say, and a Grand Jury may have a say.

            Again, you pick and choose what sources you believe are the final authority,but not being a witness, your certainty of the shooter being right, has zero impact on the fact that questioning the events is necessary for justice.

            One way is simple bias, the other is reasonable.

          • coolreasoning

            “My theory is hardly “wild” that the police said as much to the family.”
            Where is the story that says the police said that to the family? Please provide me a link. I have read a lot of different stories from a lot of different sources and it does not say in a single one that police have stated that. The only reference I see to it is this girls statement in this story. She doesn’t state whether that is something the police told her or whether it was a rumor from the urban grapevine.
            The prosecutor does have the final say, but police aren’t stupid enough to get out in front of a investigation and declare it looks like a good shooting if they aren’t very certain it is. It makes them look like morons. They would say they have no statement because it is an ongoing investigation. Let me guess, you have had no exposure to the criminal justice system other than TV?
            The impaneling of a Grand Jury would also be highly unlikely for a case like this.
            Again you dance around the fact you cannot provide any other source by accusing me of not believing the ones you haven’t presented. Again, just provide A SINGLE LINK TO A SINGLE STORY where either the police say the boys were retreating, or one where the sister directly attributes that allegation to the police. Just ONE LINK.

        • coolreasoning

          By the way, even if you think that the cops are evil, do you really think they’d be stupid enough to tell the family the boys were retreating, and then tell the public it was justified?
          Are the cops evil geniuses, or just evil?

        • coolreasoning

          “It is not incumbent upon me to provide a source you will choose to accept. You are doing the choosing.”

          I have had nothing to choose from, because you have not provided any other sources. I’m just looking for even a SINGLE OTHER CORROBORATING source. I can’t believe you’d base your entire opinion on a single source. That’s pretty lazy and shoddy. Of course when you have a predetermined outcome in mind and only a single source confirms your bias, what else can you do? On the other hand I can link you to dozens of stories where the police contradict you by saying it appears to be justified.

          If you had any other source you would have gladly provided it.

  • 67anarchy .

    those kids knew what they were doing at that age. they just thought they had easy prey. you go granny!

  • cojar

    I teach my kids to stay out of other people’s yards, not even to mention their homes. Teach your chikdren to respect others property.

  • Jason O

    Calling these 2 kids terrorists is pathetic. Criminals yes, but over use the word terrorist it holds no meaning. Jan you are a mongoloid.

    • finishstrongdoc

      And calling someone a “mongoloid” for expressing an opinion is what, exactly?

      • Jason O

        I don’t know we will take that on a mongoloid by mongoloid basis.

        • finishstrongdoc

          Using the word “mongoloid” as a bullying tactic is pathetic, and demeans those who have Down Syndrome. Have you no decency?

  • Taint Martinez

    I think of the last scene of “Ten to Midnight” where the perp threatens to come back. There was no reason to believe that these teens wouldn’t return.

  • IndigoRed

    It wasn’t their house. That’s all the warning needed.

  • Vonnie Maguire

    I don’t care how old you are, you break into my house, the last thing you will see is the wrong end of the barrel on a gun. PERIOD

  • Donna Rainville

    “They didn’t deserve to be shot.” BS. The elderly folks didn’t deserve to have their home invaded and be in fear of their lives.

    • Sardis

      I don’t think those statements have to be mutually exclusive.

  • Steph8888

    Good for them. Two more little thugs bite the dust. You gonna be stupid you gotta be tough.

  • Bill Catz

    This is why my home is protected by Smith & Wesson and so am I.

  • Hylander6

    If every “Would-be” thief knew that they stood an excellent chance of becoming worm food, then maybe they would think twice.

  • Donald Shay

    FWIW — I don’t know who the woman is in the picture in the above article, but it sure ain’t the mother of the boy shot! Check out the video in this link… http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/05/two-teenage-boys-shot-dead-in-california-during-burglary-attempt/

  • noelle

    I personally liked the way my step mom handled a robber. She threw a meat cleaver at him and it nailed him in the shoulder and pinned him to the door. She told the 911 operator not to hurry, he was just gonna hang there and wait for them.

    • jeanbean14

      Is that a true story?! Hahahaha! I love it!

  • zabs

    This poor old lady shouldn’t have to be terrorized by these punks and now their deaths will be on her mind, when all she should be thinking about is peace and joy. These punks deserved what they got, and so do the family if they side with them. Crime deserves punishment. If you don’t want your sons shot, then KEEP THEM HOME, teach them some manners and respect for others and STOP BEING A WHINY DOUCHE

  • Deb

    Those two teens
    * made the conscious decision to become criminals.
    * a conscious decision to endanger and terrorize the lives of law-abiding citizens by breaking into occupied dwellings.

    Their families should be apologizing to the REAL victims, the homeowners, and telling the public they harbor no ill will toward them for simply defending their lives.

  • William L. Finucan

    To the family… sorry for your loss but, maybe you could have done a better job as a parent instilling values in your child.

  • RDiBerto67

    They got what they deserved. People are sick and tired of being taken advantage of. It is time to take matters and justice in their own hands. This was the way for thousands of years. And it needs to happen again. Laws in this country protect Thieves, Rapists, Murderers and Pedophiles. And there is no protection for the Victims. And at times the Victims are treated as criminals.
    It’s time to fight back!!!!

  • stevesmartarse

    Agreed. Maybe all the other scumbags in the neighbourhood will wise up quick.

  • Candyman101

    Maybe one of the problems these two criminals had was that their families were too busy making excuses for their behavior instead of teaching them that breaking the law by breaking into other peoples’ houses could get you hurt or killed. Maybe the families were benefiting from what the two little thugs were stealing.

    • finishstrongdoc

      Control of teens today is a disaster. Parents should have free hand to use corporal punishment, but children can run to Children’s Services and get the parent or parents arrested for laying a hand on them. Separating parents from their children is Socialism, which makes everyone a cog in the wheel of the state, and families are not important at all.

      Saying children know right from wrong at that age is only a half-truth at best. They may know right from wrong, but that makes no difference if there’s no punishment for doing wrong applied to the backsides of the rowdy teenager. Children will continue to do more and more wrong things, just to test the boundaries of their lives.

      Children need to be able to dream beyond their physical and mental boundaries as teenagers, they need to be challenged in that way. But they need to be challenged to do good and strictly prevented from doing evil at that stage of their lives. Enforcing the habit of doing good as teens will pay benefits later in life when they will be adults themselves and responsible for raising the next generation.

      If blame is to be placed by adults using these comment boxes, why can’t adults here act like adults and admit there’s too much coddling of teens and thinking of them as adequate to function in society without strict control?
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/07/you-may-think-a-teacher-being-fired-for-using-a-broomstick-on-a-student-is-a-no-brainer-but-theres-much-more-to-this-story/

  • Rags

    Good riddance. That the families of these little dirt bags are trying to qualify the behavior of their hell spawned criminal kids speaks volumes about why these kids are now dead characterless little dirt bags.

  • Deltarose

    Teens and their families need to realize, this is what can happen. Should we just wait till one day they have graduated to murdering occupants of a home because they don’t want to be caught-identified? Stupid reasoning but, that’s the mentality!

  • Steve Szyperski

    the teens should have never put the old folks in that position.

  • Randy131

    “They didn’t deserve to get killed,” said the sister of 14-year-old Michael Sambrano.

  • James Maxwell

    I’m curious as to why the teens broke into the the seniors home? Was it to get something

    to sell for drugs, terrorize the elderly residents or what? That information is missing from
    the article. It is tragic that they were killed for a criminal behavior but they chose to

    commit the crime and had to pay the piper for their actions. With the omission of

    what they were doing in the home it leaves a wide choice of options, were they on

    drugs, stealing money to buy drugs of just stupid childish pranks? Regardless it brings
    home to fact that people have the right to protect and defend themselves against thugs
    and home invaders. The fact they lost their lives, while terrible, is the result of a

    criminal action and they paid the ultimate price for ignorance.

    • Sardis

      By calling yourself Sardis, you’re really going to start confusing everyone here, my friend.

      Honestly, I’m much more concerned with what was going through the shooter’s mind. Was there legitimate fear of being physically harmed? Or was it just retribution?

      • Capt. Parker

        Sardis …. Honestly? You are more concerned with what was going through the HOME OWNER’S mind?

        Their house, their rules
        My house, my rules.
        If you break into my house – just once – what’s going through my mind is my business ….. what’s going through your mind is 230 grains moving as 875 fps …. immediately following an, “Oh, Shi…..”.

        • Sardis

          When you shoot to kill, you better be doing it because you believe it’s them or you. If you don’t believe that, then there’s a problem, no matter where you are.

  • MontieR

    Punk thugs go their just rewards. IT is difficult to have compassion for the parents of mongrels like this and more and more we hear how “wonderful” these thugs were. Raise them right instead of politically correct and maybe you can save them.

  • charlie

    I agree they did not deserve to be just shot, they deserved to be shot and killed, which they were so I say good Job, now they will not be able to continue on in their evil works. Thanks for tking out these scumballs. and then , now we also know why they did what they did, their family has no problem with it. so– sue the family for the pain and suffering these old folks suffered at their hands.

    • Sardis

      Guns should not be used against humans except for war or legitimate self-defense.

      We don’t need vigilantes deciding that kids deserve punishment with a bullet. Who are you to say whether children deserve to die for their mistakes? You weren’t even there–you don’t know what was going through the minds of the kids or the shooter. Maybe deadly force was justified, maybe not.

      It scares me how certain you and some others can can be, sitting at your computer reading a paltry blurb of an article, that certain other people deserved to be shot dead.

      • Wayne Ogilvy

        Yeah Sardis, It’s up to you and the rest of the liberal looney tunes to decide whats best for EVERYONE right ? you weren’t there either superstar. And in the majority of people that work and think for a living’s minds, The two punks played a dangerous game and in the end they lost and the good guy’s won !! P.S It’s not being a vigilante if your in your own home DEFENDING yourself ! Go back to your dope smoking and occupy rally will ya, don’t you have a cop car to pee on or something ?

  • Roger Anderson

    GEE, Just let them burglarize, destroy, STEAL, anything they damned well please, and let them be A&&&oles………………….that would be FAR better

  • kds

    And what would these As-holes HAVE DONE? LET THEM RAPE THE YOUNG GIRL AND KILL THE ADULTS? There is no cure for stupid (DEMOCRATS).

    • Sardis

      Rape what young girl? Huh? The girl in the photo? That’s one of the kid’s sisters. You don’t get to call anyone stupid until you make sure what you’re saying yourself makes any sense.

      • kds

        So you have never heard of INCEST where brothers have raped their sisters. NOW WHO IS STUPID YOU IDIOT.

  • Nonameever

    They obviously should have been shot the first time.

  • Chuck

    The lack of remorse for the criminal actions of their family members is likely a manifestation of a lack of determination to reinforce ethical, civilized standards on these two. They (the family members) may well be just as responsible for the situation as the people who were forced to take the lives of these two stupid kids. It’s time for a little introspection there.

  • Doubting Thomas

    I’d really like to hear what this family has to say about someone who breaks into their house and terrorizes them …. I really hope some one does … just so they know and understand how it feels to be ‘violated’.

  • Dempsey Coleman

    These and every other Parent of these Degenerates
    always claim their Kid Did Not Deserve These. What
    I want to know is Where Were these Parents before their
    Criminal Degenerate was doing this way before they
    Lost Their Life??? For some Reason NO Parent ever
    wanted to know WHERE DID They get that Ring or
    Whatever or the Money they just Spent on their NEW
    set of Wheels for their Car. When I discovered My
    Step Son was caught Steeling from the local Winn Dixie
    and could not Step foot back in Me and his Mother took
    him back to the Store to Apologize. After that we could
    And he was welcomed back in. Showing he had changed
    his ways.

    • Sardis

      When your step son was caught stealing from the Winn Dixie, should the owner have been allowed to shoot him? Of course not. Good for your step son that he was able to change his ways.

      • Dempsey Coleman

        For Some Reason I Think You Missed the POINT

  • john millican

    Way I see it, the family members of the two teens were probably benefiting from whatever thefts they perpetrated. I say those family members should be sued for repayment of damages incurred.

  • cordwinder

    Bad decisions usually have bad endings.

  • [email protected]

    An elderly woman was pulled over by a policeman. As he approaches the car, she informed him that she had a 45. 22 and a 9 mm in the vehicle. After checking the ownership info, he asked her, “What are you afraid of?”
    She replied, “Absolutely nothing.”
    We have the right to live free of fear. A gun can be used to restore civilized discussion in the situation where a miscreant attempts to exert coercion over a supposed victim. As the two youths lay there, they may have finally been willing to listen to the elderly people’s opinions.

  • Jim

    Well they shouldn’t have been shot, because they shouldn’t have been in their home robbing the elderly couple! 😉

  • Takebackamerica!

    While it is a shame that two young boys lost their lives, The Homeowner did what was right!. You don’t stop and ask a person who is breaking into your home, are you just here for items and money, or are you going to kill me?! Sorry but if your in my home uninvited, I’m shooting first. Ill ask questions later if you live!

  • Cliff

    This was extremely unfortunate for the children. However, that is the purpose of parents: Being old enough to know better for their children. Parents if you love your children, discipline your children… or someone else will, and you might not like the results. Get started when they disrespect you the first time, or…. let someone else far less understanding do it for you later. Your choice.

  • TexRancher

    I’m sure the folks inside the house they invaded DID ASK THEM FOR ID, but because of Holder’s attitude towards voter ID they refused to produce it and ultimately for shot! The cost of ammunition brought on by the government’s insane ammo buying frenzy made a warning shot too expensive to waste so the homeowners used these two Mensa candidates (proven by their choice to rip off the same house more than once) as target practice .

  • CrustyOldGeezer

    I don’t think they were shot because they were ‘such good, caring, loving little sweethearts’.

  • johngy

    Oh, boo hoo!They got exactly what they deserved! Break into my house and see what you get. There are people in this world who we have the right to eliminate. People who would harm, burglarize, rob, take by theft, molest, extort, etc have no right to exist on this planet. Whine all you want to. They were in the WRONG place at the right time!

  • bill45colt

    sardis, heres you a realistic option. How about you move in next to me, and when I go to town or anywhere, I go armed with a sign around my neck saying so. And you wear a sign saying that you are unarmed, and the armed guy with you swears to not pull his gun to protect any crime done to you?? Yep, that sounds fair. Or I can come to your town and do the same thing…Either way, Ill bet the criminals make a treat out of you and let me go my merry way…Oh,,,if you like, when the criminal activity is going on, you are allowed to call the cops on your phone,,,Im allowed to let fly with hot lead, but not at your attacker. Ive been in this situation 3 times already. Cops got there about 10-15 minutes later,,,to write the report and smell the smoke. I only got nicked a couple of times, but cant say the same for the other guys. Carry on,,,

  • Herman

    I guess the boy’s families didn’t know what they did for recreation on Sunday Mornings. Were they raised right, where they knew right from wrong? I would say that they got what they had coming.

  • Terry J

    If you want to blame someone for there deaths LOOK IN THE MIRROR it WAS your job to teach them right from wrong so you fail as parents if a parent don’t want there kids killed in a robbery teach them not to ROB

  • foxxybey

    So it would have been okay if the thugs killed the people in the home, people need to get their heads out of where the sun don’t shine and come into the real world, I’m glad they got themselves dead, they deserved it and the parents are as much to blame for not raising them right, go cry somewhere where no one has to look at you, idiots.

  • Terry C

    The boys were in a house they didn’t belong in, they had been there before and they tried it one time to many. This time, the home owner fought back. Now mommy and daddy, family and friends are saying they didn’t deserve to die. Where was mommy and daddy, family and friends before this happened? This time, the boys pushed their luck to far and paid for it.

  • [email protected]

    They were shot and killed after the second time of breaking into some ones house
    … UMMMmm just what is the issue here ??? they are gone and no cost to the tax payer ( us ) to house and feed them for how long ?? good by and good riddance !!!

  • Anita G Flippo Hitchcock

    Maybe someone needs to explain to this 14 year old right from wrong, and that actions have consequences. JUSTICE SERVED!

  • r rosenburg

    RAR , If people think that they can get away doing stupid things like breaking and intering the possibility of getting shot is about 75-80 percent. and yet they keep on being stupid. most kids today do not know how to read??????????????????.

  • Hoodoo H

    Simple…You come in uninvited, you get shot.

  • Justyn Chase

    Sorry but your headline is very missleading! How are they terrorists? I would label them as burglars.

    • Anton B

      The headline is factual. They were terrorizing the elderly occupants. Good Riddance.

  • SILENTHAMMER

    I hope this is a lesson to families whose “teenagers” are committing crimes against others. These family members KNEW that their son/brother was doing this..They KNEW! And yet, they didn’t stop him from doing this repeatedly. Yes, it’s too bad they were shot and killed. Giving your life away for NOTHING is STUPID! But they were playing with fire. So sad….so sad.

  • James

    To bad they were not shot the first time they broke in. It is apparent that this family has no idea of right and wrong, so no wonder these boys went wrong. With this type of attitude held by the family, the other kids will end up in trouble also.

  • 1PierreMontagne1

    Obviously these teens in excercising their right to freely do whatever
    they wanted came into conflict with their right to experience death as a
    consequence of their freely done activities.
    These boys should be nominated for the Darwin awards as “unfit to survive”
    The nomination should come from their parents who foolishly raised them in a “Castle Doctrine Environment” and didn’t teach them the facts of life.

  • Ron

    14 & 16 some how I think the parents should have known wher the little darlings were,if they been exercising some control over the two boys,they may still be alive==don’t blame the people who were defending their lives and property,it’s hard to tell who is in your house in the middle of the night,and they just picked the wrong time and place

  • CJMcRat

    There are those of us who are pro gun rights, who do not have a gun. I believe in Concealed Carry, but I am smart enough to know that I am not the one who should have a gun on me. What I do know though is that if enough people get shot while robbing, then the crime rate will go down. The average criminal can not tell if I have a gun on me or not. The shooting of these two young boys, although tragic will ensure the protection of my house and family.

  • Sam Stephens

    Good Riddance. Saves taxpayer dollars for Judicial prosecution. Crap happens. Good shooting. That’s good gun control.

  • Terylee

    Boo-Hoo,, my sons, “THE THUGS” were shot and killed during one of their acts of “BULLYING” (a senior citizen).. Their mothers and fathers (if they have one) should have taught them better. Meaning, you don’t act like a wild animal an attack someone who can’t defend them self, sometimes the consequences of your dirty deeds are much more permanent than the pleasure of your illegal and bullyng act… So be it, and guess what? The taxes the public would have to keep you incarcerated will be saved.

  • Wapitiman

    It seems to be the norm that we are not required to assume the responsibility of our actions. Everyone seems to want the authority but not the responsibility. This goes all the way up to our esteemed leaders. These two boys were forced to assume the responsibility of their actions on the spot. If they were caught and tried, they probably would have gotten away with their actions. Let’s move right along, folks!

  • Wapitiman

    Perhaps if the family had all gone to church on a Sunday morning, the world would have been a better place (in several dimensions)!

  • Snailmailtrucker

    and I don’t want the terrorist teens liberal thinking sister living near my family either !

    • BIGOTIST

      u look more like a hooker than a trucker?????

  • Snailmailtrucker

    Please “STOP” feeding (replying to ) the trolls.
    They have nothing positive to add to your conversation.
    They are here to do what liberals always do…disrupt and destroy !
    Let them try to converse with each other !

  • fistdeyuma

    I’m sad for both the victim (aka those forced to take a life in order to defend their own) and the families. It is sad that the two boys did not learn to stop doing things that would risk their life before their life was taken. Nothing good comes from this. Kids do stupid things and sometimes die while doing them. There is nothing to celebrate here.

  • D S

    If these boys did not understand they should not be in another persons home, without permission, then they learned the hard way, since their mommies did not educate them the proper way. I am all for the home owner ending the career of a little thug.

  • Cameron Triplett Sr

    The family & friends should be happy that these two punks didn’t wind up like Jimmy Hoffa!

  • Learned In Texas

    This story just “fired my rocket” … any family who thinks as these people do deserve being placed in “stocks” for a day as they did in the pilgrim days. Somehow, the thinking of these people is so messed up that they don’t believe in punishment for crimes…and multiple crimes as it were. I’d like to respond to Sardis, who thinks an elderly woman is safe in her bedroom calling the police. How is she supposed to know how big these miscreants were, and if you are really aware of how long it takes the police to respond to a burglary? They’d most likely get away to rob someone else, and because the woman was obviously easy pickings to these creeps, would be burglarized again and again.
    Secondly, the parents should have been aware of what their kids were doing and why they were out late at night. The homeowner has a perfect right (in the Constitution, no less) to protect themselves from burglars and other kinds of criminals. What was to stop them from attempting to rape the woman? Today’s kids are not only clueless about morals, it appears that their parents aren’t aware of it either. Yes, it is sad they had been killed, but don’t kid yourself….they’d probably have gotten away with more and figured it was worth it and never turned their lives around. Why do you think gangs of kids are roaming around our cities and towns beating on people in the streets? Obviously, their parents and teachers haven’t taught them any moral codes.
    Sardis, you sound like a bleeding heart liberal who has never experienced a burglary of your home. I walked into my house and realized the door was jimmied open, and I can promise you that my heart was racing. I heard the back door slam and the sound of feet running, so I immediately called the police. Then I called my boss who was working just down the road. Guess who got there first? My boss, who checked out the house, and we found the dog locked in the garage adjacent to the family room. Once we let her out, she raced out the back door on the trail of the thieves. Not only did they take everything they could grab to sell, they dumped the garbage bag on the rug and tossed their loot into the bag. Unfortunately, they were never found because behind our house was acres and acres of wooded area and a large body of water. The police didn’t get there for another 45 minutes, so meanwhile my boss went to get materials to fix my front door while I stood on the front step waiting for the police. This is not unusual, unfortunately. By the way, they got my husband’s prized possession…a Colt 45 service revolver from WWII that was given to him by his father. Do you suppose it is possible the burglars might use that gun in their next thieving spree? Bet on it, Buddy.

    • BIGOTIST

      the nu liberal amerika, where being wrong is OK~

  • 2War Abn Vet

    The right of self defense is the first law of nature. – Henry St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s 1789 Commentaries on the Laws of England

  • enrique

    A job well don I would say. I am 70 and will hurt anyone breaking into my home with either fists ,foot or any weapon I have.

  • Charles

    You cannot cure stupid! Removing them from the gene pool is a service to humanity.

  • 1MaryAnn1

    There’s someone signed in as “Sardis”…appears to be a liberal, muslim, or Obama’s spawn. Those are the ones who spew the kind of rhetoric that identifies them as wanting to control others…and making sure anyone else has to have their permission before being granted rights. If those teenagers had not broken in with the intention of stealing/harming/killing, etc., they would be alive today. I’m glad the homeowner was armed and able to take care of the problem that entered their home. We practice what we preach and if you want to take your chances, well, the choice is yours…we’ve made ours!

  • bdcorvette

    Rest in peace, punks.

  • Steve Reed

    Justice was served

  • Taking care of business!

    The moral of this story is: if someone breaks into your house, befriend them. Offer them milk and cookies, then your jewelry, DVD player, and anything they can tote-away. Otherwise–shoot them.