Burglary Victim’s Clueless Neighbors Say ‘He Should’ve Shot Him in the Foot’

Following a string of burglaries in the neighborhood, the residents of the 2800 block of La Canada Street in Las Vegas were on high alert. That’s why, when two suspicious characters were seen lurking around, the police were quickly called.

The situation escalated, however, when the two men in question began prying their way into a man’s home. The home owner grabbed his gun and fired, killing one of the burglars while the second man fled (and hasn’t been found).

Police are sending the case to the DA’s office, but they’re not expecting any charges to be filed against the home owner. The victim’s neighbors, on the other hand, are critical.

Here’s what one of the neighbors, Elizabeth Cannon, said when interviewed:

“Shooting him in the foot would have been a better idea. He has the right to defend his property, but not in the way of murdering someone.”

Another neighbor, Oscar Rodriguez, echoed that sentiment:

“If he felt he was in danger I guess he has the right to [shoot],” Rodriguez said. “But I would shoot him in the leg to keep him alive then call police.”

As we’ve discussed, “shooting to wound” is a tactic that probably shouldn’t even be used in the movies, let alone real life. Aiming at anything other than center mass is far more difficult, which increases the likelihood of missing and thereby (1) failing to stop the threat, and/or (2) hitting an innocent bystander. Even if you do succeed in hitting an aggressor’s leg or foot, that wound is less likely to immobilize him. This puts you in serious danger of continued aggression and retaliation. The object is to stop the threat.

So, this burglary victim’s neighbors would have preferred him to deliberately risk his own life, and possibly theirs, rather than the lives of the guys who were forcibly entering his house.

Here’s a news reel from Fox 5 Vegas, where you can here these gems come straight out of the respective horses’ mouths:

FOX5 Vegas – KVVU


  1. avatar Daniel says:

    Libtard neighbors are clueless! Shooting someone in the leg is pointless cause it leaves the opportunity to lawsuits. Fuck those neighbors it just proves he needs to move away from his neighbors and live near others who ain’t antigun

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Shooting in the leg is a great idea. A couple tears in the femoral, dude bleeds out, no worries. More than likely, a decent hollow point will hit and destroy part of the femoral, so shooting in the leg is probably going to be a lethal wound.

      1. avatar troutbum5 says:

        But possibly not before they deliver a fatal wound to you. Center of mass. Keep shooting til they go down.

        1. avatar JQP says:

          The problem with “calling your shots” off-center-mass is it makes getting hits harder. Which makes safety more difficult – any bullet not sunk in center mass of suspect is a bullet more likely to hit an innocent. Legs, feet, arms, and hands are smaller than the trunk and move much more quickly.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        Since a perforated femoral artery is more lethal than many hits to the torso a deliberate shot to the leg could be construed as an attempt to kill so [attempted] murder charges could result if the DA thinks you deliberately shot him in the upper leg.

        And you have a significantly higher probability of damaging the femoral artery with a .45 than a 9mm.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I suspect that the odds of that happening in an otherwise lawful shoot will go exactly nowhere. Where you shot him, and whether he was wounded or killed, are not relevant to the inquiry as to whether there was a justified reason to shoot, i.e., imminent fear of serious bodily injury or harm.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Depends on where you are. Some prosecutors look for any excuse.

        3. avatar JQP says:

          “And you have a significantly higher probability of damaging the femoral artery with a .45 than a 9mm.”

          Citation needed.

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          JMEMS but all you have to do is look up expansion factor and do a cookie cutter anslysis which is essentially the same thing the Joint Technical Coordinating Group — Munitions Effectiveness would have done.

    2. avatar Jeff In CO says:

      If he had been properly equipped with a 6.5 mm Creedmoor, then yes, he was irresponsible to not shoot him in the leg! 😉

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      More important: had he shot the guy in the leg and told the cops he “shot to wound”, he could face criminal charges. It’s only legal to shoot somebody when in imminent peril of death or serious injury. Some prosecutors see shooting to wound as a sign that the person didn’t feel he was under that level of threat.
      That’s why in defensive classes they teach students to shoot to neutralize the threat, and to tell the cops they shot to neutralize the threat.

  2. avatar Howdy1 says:

    You take care of you. Let the homeowner take care of him and his.
    The unintended consequence is you probably benefited from the homeowners action.

  3. avatar little horn says:

    haircut says it all

  4. avatar kenneth says:

    “where you can here[sic] these gems come straight out of the respective horses’ asses:”
    There. fixed it for you.

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      Yes just like ” I would have shot him on the leg ” now that shit is laughable.

  5. avatar DrewR55 says:

    These idiots are just afraid that next time it will be one of their basement dwelling, drug abusing, tidepod eating kids shot will trying to climb through someone’s window at three A.M. before the mouth breather can learn from his mistakes and turn their life around.

  6. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

    The only reason I would aim for somebody’s leg (really, their pelvic cradle) is if they’re wearing body armor that stopped my center of mass shots. This has a few advantages over going for a head shot. The pelvis is a bigger target that is less likely to move unexpectedly. Aiming lower means that missed shots don’t go as far. A lot of people consider shooting someone in the head to be murder, regardless of the circumstances, whereas a pelvic shot is not often immediately fatal while still being quite often debilitating.

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      Double aught buckshot to pelvic area works too , if you don’t have a pistol or good short barrel rifle. AR variant , etc.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      And it could him/her from having kids or more kids to terrorize in 20 years.

  7. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Protip: it’s not murder when they’re invading your home. Not all deaths are murder.

    1. avatar Texican says:

      It was a murderdeathkill(TM) don’t ya know? 😉 Scary! 😨

      1. avatar The Three Seashells says:

        “We’re police officers! We’re not trained to handle this kind of violence!”

  8. avatar DaveL says:

    Part of the problem with the gun control “debate” is that people have a childish view of the continuum of force and firepower. They want to believe that the force required to “stop” an attacker is somewhat less than the force required to kill them. This is not true, since a mortal wound may take hours to days to cause death, while an attack must be stopped in seconds. Likewise they like to believe that the firepower required for self defense or hunting is considerably less than that required for massacres and war, hence the ridiculous handwringing over the power of the .223 Remington round.

  9. avatar RA-15 says:

    ” I would shoot him on the leg ” obvious lack of knowledge in regard to this incident !! You sir would be dead. If a criminal Is breaking in to your home , shoot first , answer questions later. You don’t shoot to wound a criminal breaking in your home , thus giving said criminal a chance to have an adrenalin spike and shoot you. You drop him where he stands. The guy got what he deserved. Maybe this will be a lesson to future criminals thinking of breaking in to homes. You never know who is on the other side of the door , or what they might have to defend their home.

  10. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Some tards are just out and out Morons.

  11. avatar Ed Earl says:

    It’s really pretty simple.

    If you don’t believe they intend to harm or kill you, then you probably shouldn’t shoot at all.

    If you believe they intend to harm or kill you, then you probably shouldn’t shoot to wound.

  12. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    Typical Leftists.

    The only thing Leftists do best is hate. And the one thing they hate the most, besides Trump, is America.

    Check this out –

    TV Poll: 71% Of Liberals Don’t Want Peace With North Korea Because Trump Would Take Credit


    “A live TV poll taken on Michelle Wolf’s Netflix show found that 71% of the comedian’s liberal audience would rather peace with North Korea fail than see Donald Trump take credit for it.

    The audience was asked, “Are you sort of hoping we don’t get peace with North Korea so you wouldn’t have to give Trump credit?”

    Only 29% said they wanted peace with North Korea given the option.

    Wolf’s guest on the show subsequently remarked, “That’s how liberal they are that they would rather the world explode, they’re like ‘I told you guys he was an asshole’.

    In other words, a significant majority of leftists would happily risk nuclear war, so long as it meant Trump would look bad.

    Let that sink in.

    When conservatives talk about how many on the left “hate America,” it’s seen by most as a tired cliché, but when you see clips like this it really makes you wonder.”


    1. avatar ll says:

      Zero hedge, your source, is a Russian propaganda outlet. So you are taking the words of a hostile foreign power, using then to build hatred in your heart for your fellow countrymen, and spreading that hate around.

      that’s all assuming you are an american.:

  13. avatar MouseGun says:

    And to the desert trash I say, “f#ck you! If someone breaks into you rusty trailer to steal your swamp coolers and Voltswagon dune buggy tires, you can go ahead and try to shoot him in the foot!”

  14. avatar Juice says:

    The people who call for leg shots are the same people who hear of the police shooting an armed suspect on a busy sidewalk and complain that a bystander *could* have been hit. Doesn’t matter what happened, but from their armchair it was all bad and should have been done differently.

  15. avatar strych9 says:

    From a legal perspective wouldn’t “shooting to wound” open you up to a more significant chance of legal charges by removing a great deal of the “I was in fear for my life” argument? Similar to a warning shot, wouldn’t this tactic basically be admitting that the situation didn’t really justify firing said shot?

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      My take as well. It’s not my job to capture the bad guy, it’s to keep him from hurting or killing me and my family. Plus, any firing of the gun can be construed as the use of deadly force, so said deadly force had best be called for.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Easy answer. Don’t say you shot to wound, say you shot because you felt your life was in danger. Period. Full stop. You shoot to stop the attack. If he’s wounded, he’s wounded, if he’s dead, he’s dead. Makes no never mind, as far as the law is concerned. right, Ralph?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Pretty much. If you are in reasonable fear of your life, you are entitled to stop the threat. Except in England, where you are expected to die like a man.

  16. avatar Hannibal says:

    well, I guess if they weren’t trying to invade his home we wouldn’t have to worry would we?

    The sad part is that slack-jawed yokels like this make it into jury pools all the time.

  17. avatar CoCoJo says:

    “Shoot him in the leg”, and even funnier, “Shoot him in the foot”…

    These people are stupid.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      The people that think shoulder shots aren’t ‘as deadly’ are also funny

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeah shoot him in the leg-the THIRD leg. I have relative’s in Vegas and they are profoundly pro-gun. I doubt they interviewed them…

  19. avatar barnbwt says:

    Yeah, you slack-jawed yokels wouldn’t have paid his civil-suit legal fees in that case, either

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You can, in most circumstance, and definitely including these, only sue a government official acting in the scope of his/her employment for civil rights violations, not mere citizens and homeowners. Fact.

  20. avatar Big Al says:

    Officer to the homeowner – “Well, Sir why did you shoot the would-be burglar 9 times”? Homeowner response – “I ran out of cartridges, officer”.

  21. avatar Dave Huff says:

    Center of mass, keep shooting until the threat is eliminated!

    1. avatar Aveage Joe says:

      Both of them probably eliminated right then and there! 😉

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    “Elizabeth Cannon, said when interviewed: ‘Shooting him in the foot would have been a better idea.'”

    Of course, Ms. Cannon (how’s that for a name of a firearms ignoramus) is a ninja and can bend the arc of bullets to hit whatever she wants whenever she wants. She should be instructing us all. In fact, she should instruct all the cops of Las Vegas Metro. Hell, send her to New York City so she can turn the NYPD into nascent Annie Oakleys.

    We all bask in the glow of her reflected glory.

  23. avatar AD Clay says:

    OK, let’s all go easy on “Lizzy.” It’s got to be hard going through life with your eyes 3/4 closed. And Oscar looks pretty damn good for a man his age. He was in Treasure of the Sierra Madre wasn’t he?

  24. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Well, too bad this perp didn’t break into one of the neighbor’s houses; he’d probably still be alive and ready to commit future crimes.

  25. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    I’m guessing these people would feel differently if someone was invading THEIR homes.

  26. avatar billy-bob says:

    Could be he was a regular customer at the meth house, and they didn’t want to lose the repeat business?

  27. avatar ollie says:

    In the 1960’s, democrats gave endangered species protections to morons, lazy people, stupid people, careless people and idiots.

    Now the Nation is overrun with millions of those wonderful folks.
    In the old days, Darwinian events would have severely pared down their numbers.

  28. avatar bobo says:

    Aim for the ‘pinky’ toe!

  29. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    Elizabeth Cannon is quite the looker, she has a Facebook page, have at her folks, I’m sure she would appreciate Pro-2nd Amendment memes and PMs

    link :


    1. avatar Joatmon says:

      That’s a man baby! Said in my best Austin Powers voice. 🤣

      1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:


        ……. and it claims to be a “veteran” too, if true it’s a good bet thanks to Obama we paid for it’s SRS (physical disfigurement/sexual reassignment surgery).

  30. avatar JQP says:

    Any other special requests from the ‘tard section? Maybe the cop should’ve done a cartwheel or a pirouette while banking the shot off a couple walls?

  31. avatar GS650G says:

    Shoot him in the leg with a .308
    Or better yet a 6.5 creedmore

  32. avatar Wally1 says:

    Only leg shot would be with a .45-70 or 450 Marlin, (OK, maybe a 12 gauge 870 or BPS with slugs or buckshot), everything else is two to the chest and one to the head, preferably while closing distance.

  33. avatar Bob999 says:

    I guess it would be time to get new neighbors. His neighbors are life long victims and crime magnets. The further away from these people he can get, the safer he will be.

  34. avatar Mr Bad News says:

    The home owner should have poked his gun out the window and said, “Just between us, try my neighbor’s house. She’s an idiot and unarmed.”

    Everybody would have lived,.. maybe…

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