Wife thankful husband is alive after he crashed into Seagoville home and was shot by homeowner

No need to create strawman. Any logical person being honest can see the threat a 2000lb vehicle DRIVING THROUGH YOUR HOUSE creates for both people and property. Let's show you an example since you can't seem to wrap your head around the threat a car poses driving around in someones house.

https://wreg.com/news/local/car-strikes-house-kills-one-in-hit-and-run-crash/

A car reportedly drove through the front of a house, killing a woman inside. Police say the driver fled the scene.

 

Do you think they knew that?

 

I made the mistake of assuming that you understood the concept of an order of events. The car had already crashed when this guy shot. No one, to my knowledge, had been killed, but correct me if I'm wrong. The crash had already happened. It is illegal to just shoot someone for REVENGE for them damaging your property. As it should be. I'm sorry you disagree, but I'm glad the law is on my side on that one.

 

My bad. They thought he was turning into a werewolf. Those were silver bullets, obviously.

 

Car was crashed and accelerator deployed all the way. Revving engine. Most logical people know when you press the gas, the car will go forward. Not everything stuck stays stuck.

Car still had gas pedal fully deployed down and was on. LOL.

Zero charges have been filed against the home owner. LOL.

 

So you agree that you know of no reason not to shoot. Thanks for being honest, for a change...lol

 

Zero evidence has been given of a justification for shooting. Also, how is killing someone going to take their foot off of the accelerator?

 

Lol, that's not how law and justification works.

And thanks again for agreeing that there is no reason to think the shooting is justified.

 

Ah! A snarky Captain Hindsight. Funny.

 

Right. A car driving around in your house poses no threat to life and property.

 

We aren't discussing how the law works. You're ignorantly claiming the homeowner had no justification to open fire. I'm pointing out that you weren't there, so there's no way you can know that...lol

 

Nobody that paranoid should have a gun.
Someone walked on my grass yesterdays. So obviously I assumed it was a home invasion so I shot them. Not sure how I’m going to get my mail now…

 

After it has already crashed? No. Not really. And you failed to answer my question: how is killing someone going to take their foot off of the accelerator?

 

And I'm pointing out that we agree you have no evidence the shooting was justified.

 

Accelerator takes force to push down. Do you think humans once killed can move around like ghost and interact with objects like Casper?

 

Yup, right after being convicted of a crime.

 

You are aware that a foot can stay on an accelerator even after someone has lost consciousness, yes?

 

I understand that but all I am saying is we don't have enough information here to be drawing conclusions.

The only conclusion we can draw is that he was not legally justified to shoot but aside from that we have literally no information aside from it being a senior driver having a seizure.

We have no information to draw a conclusion about what could have possibly been going through the shooter's mind.

 

It's easy to understand how it could happen if you use your brain instead of your tear ducts to come to conclusions eh?

 

How is a car driving through the middle of your house a threat unless you're standing directly in front of it. /knee slap

 

Yeah you should remain calm when the car comes through the wall.

 

Is that the only options? Calm or open fire?

 

As it happens, I have been in a very similar situation, being at a friends house when a car crashed through the back garden and in to the kitchen wall. Thankfully, none of us were in the kitchen at the time and the people in the car only suffered relatively minor injuries (though, possibly related, they were all high including the driver, hence the crash).

Now this was in the UK so guns wouldn't have been an option regardless (though coincidentally, we did have a collection of live swords to hand ) but that didn't even cross our minds anyway, even after the obviously intoxicated driver got out of the car. Our focus was entirely on checking nobody was serious hurt, getting everyone away to safety and our calling for an ambulance rather than police (though they obviously arrived too). I can't possibly imagine how you could get from a car crash to the point of using lethal force against someone without very specific reasoning.

I think another question would be what level of perceived or actual threat the law in that jurisdiction would render the shooting legal. I'd be concerned that the simple fact the driver was on the homeowners property and not obeying instructions to leave (regardless of any medical or practical ability to do so) would be sufficient to render the shooting legal regardless. That could well be the implication in the article, given that the driver apparently hasn't been arrested, let alone charged with anything, with the case just being referred to the grand jury. That would suggest the default position that shooting someone on your property is fine unless there are specific reasons for it not to be.

On last point would be to suggest that rather than only imagining yourself in the position of the homeowner, as so many people seem to be doing, also imagine yourself in the position of the driver. Surely you can conceive of accidently crashing your car in to someone else's property and how you would hope and expect anyone in the property to react.

 

No. My other option is not coming to conclusions in the face of inadequate information.

Not a problem leftists have though.

 

What percent of cars crashing into American homes are anything other than an accident?