Quote of the Day: Think Before You Speak Edition

“They need to be shot.” – Dallas resident Mitchell McKeller [via nbcdfw.com]

comments

  1. avatar ST says:

    Totally agree. The man’s comments were completely out of line. He should have said that anyone who invades your home should be KILLED, not merely ‘shot’. 🙂

  2. avatar HSR47 says:

    So you’re saying that someone violently invading your home is not justification for the use of deadly force?

    What world are you living in?

    1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      I say that, yes. All people who “violently invade” your home are not a lethal threat to you. You have to take your responsibility as a gun owner much more seriously than to say, kill anyone who enters your home without permission.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        And all high-speed projectiles that invade such a person’s body are ultimately not instances of lethal force. Thus far I call that a proportionate response.

      2. avatar InBox485 says:

        So if a guy breaks into your home, pray tell, how are you going to determine if they are a threat? Going to have a cup of tea with them and talk about their life’s goals and ambitions then confer with a panel of psychologists?

        1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          We were talking about you and your ridiculously simplistic idea of shooting anyone who enters. You need to be a bit more discretionary than that.

        2. avatar InBox485 says:

          Feel free to point out where I stated that I supported the “idea of shooting anyone who enters”… I’ll wait…

          The closest thing I’ve ever said to that effect is that if somebody forces their way into my house, I will assume they intend to hurt the occupants of my home until proven otherwise. That is in alignment even with the laws of the Brady bunches pet state CA where I have the presumptive fear of great bodily harm if there is an intruder.

          In the video, the context of what was said was painfully clear, yet you chose to take it out of context and go full retard with it. Better luck next time.

  3. avatar cmd says:

    A world where Mr. McKeller could be a victim of a home invasion, defend himself and then find some anti-gun lawyer for the robber’s family have now filed a lawsuit for wrongful death. His words could then come back to haunt him as intent for shooting the “victim” to death. Hell it could be the ACLU.

    The law has nothing to do with right or wrong. Best to keep your mouth shut.

    1. avatar NCGlockin says:

      That’s why you need good Castle Doctrine Laws. In 2 days, that will be the case in N.C. when a new law goes into affect so the perp’s family can’t sue you in civil court if you do have to pull the trigger.

      I don’t know about Texas, but I would think they have a Castle Doctrine. If not, I am sure someone on this blog will set me straight.

      1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

        we have it …..and it works just fine…….but he should keep his mouth shut….period…

      2. avatar cmd says:

        I wish we had it VA. But even if we did I would not make that kind of statement to the local news.

        1. avatar HSR47 says:

          It took us 7-8 years to get it here in PA, no thanks to the NRA.

  4. avatar sdog says:

    while i COMPLETELY agree with the sentiment, saying it on tv is a bad idea, but this IS texas we are talking about. remember the guy who shot a guy the gang banger who were breaking into his neighbors house and got away with it?

  5. avatar ChrisM says:

    It’s Texas……..”He needed killin'” is a valid legal defense there.

  6. avatar paul r says:

    Well, they really DO need to be shot! But for heavens sake STFU after you shoot. Admittedly, McKeller was not the shooter but even still; why s it soooooo hard for people to keep their lips still?

  7. avatar cmd says:

    He shot two illegal aliens that had been arrested for drug offenses that were robbing his neighbors house. The Grand Jury cleared him but he has had death threats in addition to his whole life turned upside down. I’m not sure I would have told the 911 operator that I was leaving the safety of my home to go shoot 2 guys robbing my neighbor. This also may have a negative impact on future Castle Doctrine laws in other states.

  8. avatar HAVE GUN says:

    No good can come from making a statement like that in public.

    Imagine being involved in a shooting and there is some question as to the legality, that is not something I want to be in the minds of the police or DA.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    This is bushwah. Saying “they need to be shot” is just fine for somebody who didn’t shoot anyone and, for all we know, is unarmed. He spoke in defense of someone who did shoot a burglar. What’s wrong with that? Just because we have a Second Amnedment doesn’t mean we have to give up the First.

    Of course, saying the same thing after shooting someone is a little more problemmatic. In Texas, “they need to be shot” is a figure of speech. In Massachusetts, it’s a confession.

    1. avatar sdog says:

      +1 Ralph, very eloquent.

  10. avatar irock350 says:

    Welcome to Texas I suppose? If you are breaking into homes in Texas there is a possibility that you may be shot and according to Texas law it is justified under certain circumstances. Infact in Texas if you have a Purple fence you have sent a message that noone should be on your property without your permission and if someone breaks into your home it is assumed that they hav ebeen warned that they are tresspassing. He message isn’t any differnce from a no tresspassing sign or a “This house is protected by Smith and Wesson” sign.

  11. avatar BLAMMO says:

    We have no castle doctrine in NY but even if we did, one of the last things I’d ever want to do is shoot someone in my own home.

    But the very last thing I’d ever want to do is wish I had.

  12. avatar Graybeard says:

    In Texas, that’s not a threat, the ACLU wouldn’t get out of the bar ditch trying to get to that. We do have the Castle Doctrine – and it is established law in Texas that shooting a thief as he (or she) is taking off with or attempting to take off with your property is justifiable. The legalese is somewhat more formal. But if she’d had a firearm and blown him to an early appointment with God, in Texas there would be no repercussions for her. “He was stealing my property” is all we have to prove.

  13. avatar Skyler says:

    What’s with all the negativity on this blog? It’s a great blog with lots of good info, but there seems to be a repeated refrain that we should be afraid to exercise our right to free speech.

    I would hope that instead of worrying what some imaginary prosecutor would say, that the would be burglars would instead be worried that people are intending to shoot him. How many burglaries and ventilated burglars are prevented from people speaking their mind?

    It seems to me that people who speak up for burglars and want them to be safe and cozy in their misdeeds have a problem with identifying with them too much. Why? Are they afraid that someday they might take up that line of work?

  14. avatar Chas says:

    If someone gains entry into my home without my permission, I’m not going to be stupid enough to assume that he’s there to sell me a magazine subscription.

  15. avatar Bob says:

    @Mikeb302000 – how much time do you allow for and how do you go about determining whether the person who just broke into your home has intent to harm you or not?

    1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      Of course it depends on the circumstances. What I object to is the macho bullshit that says, “you come in my house and you’re dead.”

      1. avatar Not Jimbo says:

        Thats why the castle law is so important. With it, I can assume that anybody who is in my house uninvited is there to do harm to me and my family. I can then use deadly force in defense of me and mine without fear of legal repercussion. Even a simpleton can understand that and doesn’t have to wait until another credible threat is presented.

        1. avatar Skyler says:

          That’s not really the case. You still need a reasonable fear that the intruder poses a danger. If the intruder is a three year old child, few juries would support your decision to shoot.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email