SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE OF HOME

Forums: Home Defense
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/09/15/2010-09-15_brooklyn_man_wakes_to_find_intruders_in_home_fires_3_shots_to_halt_wouldbe_robbe.html

A Brooklyn homeowner shot a would-be burglar three times as the crook
and an accomplice rifled through the man's home early Wednesday, police said.

The man and his wife were startled awake around 2:30 a.m. by every
homeowner's worst nightmare - the sound of an intruder inside the
home, police said.

The robbers were snooping around the ground floor of the home on E. 64th St.
in Mill Basin when the homeowner descended the steps, armed
and ready to fire.

He squeezed off at least three shots, hitting suspect Alexander
Manigat, 30, twice in the torso and once in the arm, police sources said.

It is not clear if there was a struggle before the shooting, which
sent Manigat's accomplice racing from the home.

The accomplice remained on the loose, but Manigat was taken into
police custody and removed to Brookdale Hospital, where he is in
critical condition, police said. Charges are pending.

The homeowner, who was not immediately identified, had a license for
the firearm and will likely not be charged with a crime, police said.

"They're good people," a neighbor, who declined to give his name,
said of the couple. "He's shaken up, but he's okay. This is a quiet
neighborhood. This is strange. It's awful - but it's Brooklyn!"

Police officials said the home invasion does not appear to be related
to a push-in robbery last month in Mill Basin.

In that robbery on Aug. 11, two masked men forced their way into a
home on E. 65th St., tied up the family and fled with a significant
haul - $50,000 in cash and diamonds, but both perpetrators were later
collared by police.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 811 • Replies: 11

No top replies

I'm happy the couple woke up in time, that they didn't lose their lives and the two crazies weren't able to steal anything.

1 Reply

@Pemerson,

Pemerson wrote:

I'm happy the couple woke up in time, that they didn't lose their lives
and the two crazies weren't able to steal anything.

Yeah; that counts for a lot.

0 Replies

From Monday's news:

Quote:

A man who was so enraged over how his wife cooked his eggs, killed her, his step daughter and three neighbors and then ultimately himself in Kentucky.

Still dressed in his bed clothes, Stanley Neace, 47, went on a killing spree in a trailer park in Jackson, eastern Kentucky. The massacre happened at around 11.30am local time. Neighbors said that Neace stormed across the lawns of several homes, firing off his shotgun as he went.

"He just got mad at his wife for not making his breakfast right and he shot her. She tried to run to tell my family and he shot them too because they found out about it" said Sherri Ann Robinson, a relative of two of the victims.

I know you advocate arming everybody, David, including folks like Stanley Neace. And I'm sure you feel every wife should cook breakfast with a .45 strapped to her waist, just in case her husband doesn't like his eggs. But that leads to sheer insanity like this in what purports to be a civilized society.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

From Monday's news:

Quote:
A man who was so enraged over how his wife cooked his eggs, killed her, his step daughter and three neighbors and then ultimately himself in Kentucky.

Still dressed in his bed clothes, Stanley Neace, 47, went on a killing spree in a trailer park in Jackson, eastern Kentucky. The massacre happened at around 11.30am local time. Neighbors said that Neace stormed across the lawns of several homes, firing off his shotgun as he went.

"He just got mad at his wife for not making his breakfast right and he shot her. She tried to run to tell my family and he shot them too because they found out about it" said Sherri Ann Robinson, a relative of two of the victims.

I know you advocate arming everybody, David, including folks like Stanley Neace. And I'm sure you feel every wife should cook breakfast with a .45 strapped to her waist, just in case her husband doesn't like his eggs. But that leads to sheer insanity like this in what purports to be a civilized society.

EACH civilized person must decide the degree of personal security to adopt and impliment.
It is a personal decision, the same as whether to eat sugar, or red meat, or to drink alcohol.

U decide for yourself, I 'll decide for me, and we will all live
with the results, such as thay prove to be.

(Note: I am not a socialist; I am an Individualist. Therefore, I desire that all future potential victims ARM THEMSELVES,
not that I shoud arm them, nor that government shoud do so, the same way that thay get their own books and their own cars.)

David

0 Replies

I suspect that if the victims had all been armed with their own guns,
Stan woud not have gotten very far.

David

0 Replies

Great idea, David. Five people with guns all shooting at each other in the middle of a crowded trailer park. JUST STOP APPOINTING THESE DAMNED RIGHT WING ACTIVIST JUDGES THAT SUGGEST LUNACY LIKE THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL. TAKE AWAY THE GODDAMNED GUNS AND THESE KINDS OF INCIDENTS WON'T BE ABLE TO HAPPEN.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Great idea, David. Five people with guns all shooting at each other in the middle of a crowded trailer park. JUST STOP APPOINTING THESE DAMNED RIGHT WING ACTIVIST JUDGES THAT SUGGEST LUNACY LIKE THIS IS CONSTITUTIONAL. TAKE AWAY THE GODDAMNED GUNS AND THESE KINDS OF INCIDENTS WON'T BE ABLE TO HAPPEN.

No, Jack. (I can be magnanimous about your hysterical screaming,
inasmuch as I am winning and u have lost.)
U r very confused about TARGETING
and also about American Constitutional history.

George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and Patrick Henry were ALL on MY side and none on yours.
NONE of the Founders supported gun control -- not a word.

On the other hand, in the spirit of today's mandatory seatbelt laws,
in Colonial America it was against the law to go to Church without bringing a gun. Maybe thay were losing too many Christians.

David

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Jack, complaining about someone being a right wing activist
is like complaining about an accountant being too keenly interested in accuracy of his numbers.

A right wing activist judge simply puts the situation back the way it was
and how it was supposed to be in the FIRST PLACE.

"Gun control" was a Johnny-come-lately perverson of the Constitution of the 1900s.

David

0 Replies

Bullshit, David. It's got nothing to do with what the Consitution was originallhy, since you guys on;y follow what you think one small segment of the founding fathers believed, and completely disregard the wide spectrum of different views of the founding fathers as to what they were doing/

The laws about carrying guns to church dated from a century and a half before the Constitution was written. They were largely for protection against Indian attacks, not surprising considering the barbarous ways the colonials treated the Indians. There were very few Indian attacks in Philadelphia in the 1790s. And from the passage of those laws they had to keep fining people because they didn't bring their guns to church. They also, I might add, did in fact practice gun control. The same people who passed those laws in the 1630s and 1640s made it a crime to sell guns to Indians. So it was a very selective right.

You will also notice, if you go back and read those laws and regulations, that the guns were for use in the militia, which took the place of a standing army in colonial times (as it does NOT today), and the militia was very closely regulated by colonial government, most basically on the town level. It was NOT just some yahoo wanted a gun and got one--people had specific duties to the militia. Not the case today.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Bullshit, David. It's got nothing to do with what the Consitution was originallhy,

THAT was and IS the deal, the social and political contract, that has validity.
It is shocking that u allege that:
"It's got nothing to do with what the Consitution was originallhy [sic]".
U r very radical and u exhort political chaos, based on fraud.

MontereyJack wrote:

since you guys on;y follow what you think one small segment of the founding fathers believed,
and completely disregard the wide spectrum of different views of the founding fathers as to what they were doing/

That is factually baseless nonsense; untruthful.
U r radical in your rejection of historical fact, Jack.

MontereyJack wrote:

The laws about carrying guns to church dated from a century and a half before the Constitution was written.
They were largely for protection against Indian attacks,

Yes; some problems with the French too.
What is your POINT ??

MontereyJack wrote:

not surprising considering the barbarous ways the colonials treated the Indians.

Yes, and reciprocally vice-versa.

MontereyJack wrote:

There were very few Indian attacks in Philadelphia in the 1790s.
And from the passage of those laws they had to keep fining people because they didn't bring their guns to church.

Yes, unless thay brought them to Church.
Thay ofen had marksmanship competitions, with prizes, after Church.
James Madison (who wrote the Bill of Rights) operated some of them.
That was also true for centuries in England.

MontereyJack wrote:

They also, I might add, did in fact practice gun control.
The same people who passed those laws in the 1630s and 1640s made it a crime to sell guns to Indians.
So it was a very selective [ ?? ] right.

Very?? The exception of not committing TREASON, u characterize as "very selective right"??
Jack, that was NOT gun control: THAT WAS PROHIBITING TREASON.

Selling guns to the Indians was aid n comfort to the enemy and complicity in their waging war against us.

MontereyJack wrote:

You will also notice, if you go back and read those laws and regulations, that the guns were for use in the militia, which took the place of a standing army in colonial times (as it does NOT today), and the militia was very closely regulated by colonial government, most basically on the town level. It was NOT just some yahoo wanted a gun and got one--people had specific duties to the militia.

U confuse and conflate concepts of "the militia". There were government boys called "selected militia"
an example of which is in Article I Section 8, subsections 15 and 16.
Private militia were called "well regulated militia".
Examples of those existed thru out America, as needed,
the same as volunteer fire dept.s, or the same as the Free French
in World War II, unbeholden to any government.
The Mormons had their own militia.
Thru out the Mid East now, there are many Moslem religion-based militia.

When we have had race-riots in American cities, ofen
merchants formed their own private de facto militia because the police fled.
Arguably, the fellows on United Airlines Flight 93 were a well
regulated militia when thay counterattacked the Moslems on 9/11/1,
tho its likely that thay were too busy to ponder intangible definitions,
but thay were free and on their own, and thus
thay were well regulated militia (private militia).
The key criterion of a well regulated militia
is that it be free of any taint of interference from any government.
That frase was also sometimes used to indicate well-trained militia,
well-disciplined, practiced in battle tactics against Indians, Englishmen or any enemy.

MontereyJack wrote:

Not the case today.

Do YOU believe that a change in the facts AMENDS the Constitution,
without the procedures of Article 5 ?
That is a novel vu.

We got screwed out of our liberty
because of a change in ambient facts ?????????
I don 't think so.

David

SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE OF HOME

Quick Links

My Account

able2know