YES!!! You go guy!!!
 

Deadly home invasion in Coon Rapids

Updated: 11/28/2006 08:27:35 AM

Coon Rapids police are investigating a deadly home invasion that happened around 11 p.m Monday. Investigators say a 73-year-old homeowner shot and killed an intruder on Bittersweet Street Northwest.

It appears the suspect entered the home by kicking in a back garage door. The homeowner fired a rifle, killing the intruder.

The homeowner believes there may have been a second suspect because he thought he heard two voices.

Police say the suspect was not carrying any identification.

The Coon Rapids Police Department, the Anoka County Sheriff's Department and the coroner are investigating.

Stay with 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS and KSTP.com for continuing coverage on this story.

Haha. Serves him right.

As you may have guessed already, I am pro-gun rights for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves, because of exactly this type of thing. If he had not been able to defend himself, that man would probably be dead right now (the victim) and whoever else was in the house with him instead of the criminal.

It would be bittersweet if the guy managed to defend his place, only to get arrested for murder...and went to jail, got used like a wrinkly dick puppet, had a heart attack, and died.

That foolishness out of the way...I think only stupid laws protect home invaders from coming to all kinds of harm. It disgusts me that some junkie filth that would just as soon hurt or kill, could even POTENTIALLY take a homeowner to court for protecting themselves or their families/property.
The guy had it coming. I am absolutely behind the right to keep a firearm in the house, provided it is kept responsibly...home invaders should accept this as a risk of their "occupation", and if they get fucked up or killed, it's on them, not on the person they've traumatised.

unfortunately - more people get shot with their own guns - than intruders ..

As long as they're aware of that risk in keeping one...I think if one IS kept in a responsible way, you'd be at less risk. I say the first measure is a decent alarm and security system, if that goes off and somebody persists, you'd be alerted to their presence in good time to fetch arms. I really couldn't see somebody getting through that, and taking a person unawares in their own house and dissarming them. I mean...if they COULD, then I probably wouldn't suggest that person owns a firearm in the first place.
I think the motto "don't take it out unless you're ready to use it" (hm...that works a few ways) is a good one...I really can't imagine if someone were ready to use a firearm and properly prepared, could not come out on top...getting shot with your own gun...I have to say that there's the mark of someone who could use a little more training (which I believe is part of responsible firearm ownership also)
I say if you're gonna bear arms, be prepared for the consequences, and potential risks involved. Of course, it's a risk that I think is worth taking if it meant the difference between being able to protect your family from multiple unarmed/non projectile weapon weilding assailants, and not.

I love a happy ending.

He still only has a 50% kill ratio though, and that's not great.

Oh, hush. :p :) He got the only one he saw, the other one(s) probably ran off after hearing gunfire.

well
 

the intruder shouldnt have intruded. what a rest of life. why do people rob others? why did he kick open the door? he must have wanted to get caught.

Ironic and unfair as this may seem..
1st of all 'fucken good job'..!!ass hole

this man will be charged..i bet you.
he will be charged for this

1: the intruder had only kicked in the garage door..
he wasn't actually fully on the premises and his only crime wouldve been
wilfull damage to private property.

2:what was the home owner doing..walking around at that
hour of the night with a fully loaded firearm..?

3:was the fire arm registered..?

4: the law states that you can protect your life and property
but only if a reasonable cause was deemed likely..
your only meant to scare..not kill..


5:A case needs to be proven that the intruder was
in actual fact a threat to the home owner.

He was on the home owners property though. The intruder could have damaged the door and left... you're right. However he could have just as easily snuck in and killed anybody in the house while they were asleep and stole everything.

your right..but unfortunately ..the law does not see it that way..the fucks.

Em so with the home owner on this...i too woulda shoved a few pellets up that bastards ass with a smile.
That poor old man..just imagine how scared he wouldve been.

Ah, but the laws have changed here in the states...I believe it was Florida that passed it first...

Marshall Law (that's what some are calling it)...If you kill someone on your property who could potentially hurt you or your family, you are perfectly within your right...

This law JUST passed here in Kentucky...One of our officers (a friend of ours) put it like this:

"You don't have to drag their body into your house anymore...all you have to do is say "I felt threatened""...So, my mother asked, "But, what if he doesn't have a weapon?"...To which the officer responded with, "All you have to do is say "I felt threatened""

I never posted an update, but the intruder was well into the home, upstairs and opening the bedroom door. The homeowner was not charged with anything as far as I know.

I call it the shoot first, ask questions later law (answer them never) or the shoot first law for short. :)

when in doubt, blow it away. Bunch of hicks :p

I feel threatened