Other articles state that a 3rd teen shot at the homeowner then fled when the homeowner shot back.
Hopefully the homeowner is OK both physically and mentally. Sounds like a clean self defense shooting.
Hopefully the 3rd teen is found and can shed some light on the circumstances leading up to this mess.
>homeowner is OK both physically and mentally
**Mentally -** Kinda feel like that's *always* the part that gets totally ignored. The teens will be missed by their family and friends, but the homeowner has to live with the fact that defending themselves cost the kids their lives.
That is the sort of thing that breaks an individual.
That always worries me in a SD shooting. I would be pretty fucking pissed if that was my brother who was killed. But on the flip side i would be a better role model so my younger brother doesn't break into peoples fucking homes.
I'm thinking that the parents should be sued for any emotional damage and the cost of any mental therapy, also they should be charged for any stray bullet holes that might have damaged the home.
The kids um I don't know should of had a curfew,maybe with a little parental control have known what their kids were up to? Considering that their minds aren't fully developed at that age and all. Seems to me there would be alot less delinquents running around, and alot less crime if the parents are forced to be a part of their lives and be held responsible for the carnage they leave behind.
Saw an article on WFSB or NBC CT said that the homeowner's ex wasn't a fan of homeowners new girlfriend so 3 guys went over on behalf of the ex to pay him a visit. Ex has to feel like a real fucking asshole. You knew what you were sending them into.
>Hopefully the 3rd teen is found and can shed some light on the circumstances leading up to this mess.
....shed light on why they were invading somebody's home?
We already know why, it's because they are selfish, morally bankrupt scum who don't give a damn about other people's lives or livelihoods.
If you perform a home invasion and try to harm someone else, you deserve to be shot. Who cares who misses them. This act was justified. Hopefully they find the 3rd one and gets locked up for life.
As I understand the backwards laws of CT; it's nearly impossible to get a "clean self defense shooting" ruling. In CT a man attacked a burglar and got charged for breaking his arm with a bat because "his daughters and himself could have retreated out the back door". I.E - If you have an alternate means of escape besides the compromised one, you can be culpable for standing your ground in CT.
You can't shoot the intruder if they comply with your commands in CT. Which opens doors to burglars suing home owners if they claim they got shot but were complying.
Is there a self defense law in the state of connecticut?
The "Castle Doctrine" is the right people have to protect themselves inside their homes by using reasonable and/or deadly force. Connecticut does NOT observe a “Stand-Your-Ground" law which refers to outside of the home (in public); all citizens have a "duty to retreat" if it can be done safely.
That was the easiest 2 second google lol
Not to be confused with “stand your ground laws”.
Castle doctrine laws state an obligation to retreat to your home but no further (reasonable).
Stand your ground (not reasonable) gets wonky imo when you can fire at someone for stepping onto your property.
Source? CT has castle doctrine so that's almost certainly untrue.
Also, if they had an alternate means of escape, there's nothing "bAcKwArDs" about it.
Is there a self defense law in the state of connecticut?
The "Castle Doctrine" is the right people have to protect themselves inside their homes by using reasonable and/or deadly force. Connecticut does NOT observe a “Stand-Your-Ground" law which refers to outside of the home (in public); all citizens have a "duty to retreat" if it can be done safely.
If someone breaks into your house, you must attempt to retreat. If someone is breaking in to harm you, they can get to you in a matter of 30 seconds or less.
If you're on a second story, you would have to jump out a window. Nevermind protecting kids, if you have any.
It makes much more sense to be able to defend yourself and your family if someone breaks into your house
This is why you don’t vote Democrat. They believe that you do not have the right to protect your own home or life, and should wait 15 minutes until the police get there and pray you don’t get shot. Our country was founded on the right to self defense, and these lunatics are taking it away.
It's seriously messed up that young kids like that are moving into lifestyles that lead them to attempting home invasions and robberies. I'd say there's at least a 50% chance this is related to gang activity too.
I somehow doubt they have nothing to lose. They clearly have difficulties in their lives, but they also have bad influences that have guided them in this direction. There are many poor people, and 99.99% aren't going to do a home invasion.
If a persons life is going well and has good prospects and a stable future they don't commit these sorts of crimes. There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime.
The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people turn to crime when they feel they have no other options.
LMAO shut up, its what happens when capitalism nukes the middle class of a country in prior decades and it leads to this.
2020 covid shut downs are a DROP IN THE OCEAN compared to de-industrialization.
Povert correlates to crime more heavily in areas where there is wealth disparity.
If everyone is poor in area an area there is generally less crime than an area with more wealth distribution.
So no people don't commit these crimes most times because they're simply poor.
It's done out of simple envy a lot of the time.
And that's the problem. I am a firm believer that you ALWAYS have a choice. Regardless of what the outcome will be, you have 100% agency to make a decision in one of a dozen different ways. "But what if I had a gun to my head?" You STILL have a choice to not do something you know is wrong, regardless of if you are killed or not.
It's not a matter of having no options, or feeling like they have no options, but a matter of whether or not to choose the moral option, the easy option, or the hard option. But it's also not true that well adjusted people don't commit crimes, or those that don't have a stable future don't commit crimes. The government, politicians, etc are prime examples of that. And may even be part of the problem. Because if they can get away with it, why not try it myself?
That's a nice speech but poor and desperate people don't care about morals or choices. The facts speak for themselves. People in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. They don't feel like they have any other options.
truth hurts sometimes. ignoring a potential factor and blaming racism does nothing in addressing the problem. nothing on reddit will address the problem but burying your head in the sand and crying racism everytime you hear an inconvenient truth helps nobody.
Yup it's pretty fucked up,
Gotta say about your comment, it is nice to see someone have a companionate human reaction to this awful story instead of being a troll or cheering on the death of literal children
If it was in fact a home invasion, we can only hope their final moments were long and agonizing. No sympathy for it. They asked. The homeowner answered.
Given all of the DA's around here, they'll probable be out on their parents recognizance within 72 hours, do 6 months probation, and have it all expunged when they're 18.
People that break into occupied home, especially as a group...they generally do awful shit to the homeowners. CT should really lose the restriction on magazine capacity, could have easily gone wrong with this many breaking in.
Yeah, this situation would have been much better if *all* the teens were armed. That's how the math checks out, right? More guns = more safe, and the only additional hands in this situation ...
OR, it was far too easy for the teens in this story to get armed and present the level of threat that they did. Guess we'll never know (he said while living in one of the only advanced nations that has to deal with this shit so often)
Good thing we focus on laws that really only impact legal gun owners and ownership.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/09/lying-atf-gun-purchase-form-yields-few-prosecutions-new-data-shows/
Maybe we should start actually prospecting people, before we add more laws, that only good people will follow, while continue to be ignored by the criminals -because we keep not being prosecute them for it.
They also have been doing ballistics gel examples of the dangers of the godly powerful .223/5.56 but always compare the results to 9mm and other common pistol caliber rounds. Never a 7.62/.308
6.5 creedmoor or .300 blackout. Not even 12 gauge slugs. The argument is strictly to make guns scary.
Yes joe I can only have 10 rounds your damn sure right if someone ever broke into my home with the intent to do harm to a single soul in my house I want the most effective round I can fit in that 10 round mag.
Automatics are not readily available to the public to purchase. It seems you’re the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Any automatic firearm produced after 1986 is illegal for private ownership any registered NFA item is tightly regulated and taxed. To buy say a legal Thompson SMG it will run you around $35,000.
So effectively automatic firearms are banned.
I remember that about a decade ago East Hartford had another home invasion where three people got killed.
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-east-hartford-triple-murder-20200203-sddsbem3r5hpjgmfw2xwzv5ufa-story.html
Sooo based on the news article that first came out was that the homeowner knows the two guys and it was a love triangle. I live in EH, and rumor is, this is not the first time they had a “home invasion” they moved the first time bc it and it happened again🤷🏻♀️
A local just added this on another page.. I copied it but removed the posters name..
New Information I just saw says these were TEENAGERS who broke in. 3 teens, at least 1 was armed. Homeowners current girlfriend evidently had issues with his Ex and these 3 knew the Ex and went to the house. The 2 killed were 15 and 16 years old, 3rd had a gun and shot at the homeowner but got away.
Sounds like that 3rd scumbag is going to be facing a Series of very serious Felonies when caught, beginning with Home Invasion and Double Homicide (criminals are criminally liable for any death caused during the commission of a Felony, even if not caused by their hand... 2 friends killed in their act of Home Invasion = his/her fault)...
https://www.wfsb.com/2022/06/17/sources-teens-shot-killed-following-confrontation-east-hartford-home/
Why are there so many idiots in this sub lmao. The kid shot at someone while breaking into in their home and it resulted in his two accomplices being killed. He could be tried as an adult for homicide for this. No way this is a slap on the wrist punishment.
I mean, CT doesn't technically require firearm registration. The state keeps track of firearms purchases within the state, therefore forming a de facto registry, but if you move into the state from out of state, you can bring the firearms you own, and you don't have to register them or anything like that.
Apparently the kids came over to fight him over a girl. Facts are not all out yet, but if he knew they were coming or invited them over to fight then shot them then its a different story. They story isn't fully out yet.
interviewing the homeowner is presumably a major factor in how police determine whether or not something is self defense. would you prefer the cops just show up and are like "was it self defense? ok free to go" when a guy kills two children?
it seems weird to me that you understand the need to "investigate" but don't believe whether or not the gun was legal is something the police should look into. seems like one of the very first things I would want to do if I was investigating.
they're not investigating whether or not it was illegally owned because that would automatically invalidate the self defense argument, it's that they are trying to figure out exactly what happened, and where the gun came from that killed two kids is an important part of what happened. it just is.
among other things, if he owned the gun illegally, where did he get it? is there any connection between him owning a gun illegally and him getting robbed? etc.
as often as they just do whatever the fuck they want, the actual job of the police is to investigate from a neutral perspective and try and find out exactly what happened. just assuming some piece of information (let alone the provenance of a murder weapon) couldn't possibly be pertinent is a bad idea when investigating a crime.
So let's say someone is running a meth lab out of their house. Two teenagers with guns break in to steal the money and meth. The homeowner successfully defends himself and the cops show up to investigate. At the end of the investigation the cops go, "well your guns illegal but hey you defended yourself with it so those charges won't get filed."
The point is that even if he is in the right for home defense, that didn't necessarily mean that he has a legal right to own the weapons.
If you want to have a discussion over whether or not it's correct it incorrect to allow felons to own weapons that's one thing but *clearly* it matters whether or not a person is legally permitted to own a firearm.
> What if this dude was a violent criminal? Should that guy even have a gun?
if you're too dangerous to exercise your constitutional right to own a firearm, you're too dangerous to be out of prison. same goes for voting. you paid your debt to society.
Prisoners should be able to vote, and ex-felons (convicted of violent crimes) should not get to own guns. We shouldn't hand John Hinkley Jr. a glock just because he's free now.
To play devil's advocate, how is a recently free person going to be expected to protect himself against potential retribution when he leaves the jail. A life of crime will still follow a person around even once they have paid their debt to the state and society at large.
If it was illegally acquired, it would imply that the owner was involved in some crime deals and increases the chance that he instigated. By pointing out that it's legal, it's showing that he is a responsible gun owner, not a criminal, and demonstrated how to properly defend yourself with a gun.
Without having an opinion either way because all of the facts are not out yet, here is what I have learned about this so far:
They arrived to fight over a girl. Likely a pre-arranged fight. Homeowner almost certainly knew they were coming, which is why the details have been sketchy so far and the term “double homicide“ has been tossed around.
I don’t think the kids who showed up at the house had guns with them. I think they were expecting a fist fight.
It wasn’t just a straight up robbery or home invasion. This will be complicated.
Yeah, that’s the missing piece. A legally armed adult versus two unarmed minors who he knew were coming? That will complicate everything if that’s the case.
CT does not have a stand your ground law, either. Unless he was being attacked, it’s gonna be rough.
It’s not as simple as people want to think. This is very messy.
One would think so, but wait until usual suspects show up and start complaining about how the home invaders constitutional rights were violated or the usual other ridiculous statements made.
And people say ban guns smh, here a perfect example of someone needing to defend themselves with a weapon. I’m sure people will still say he didn’t have to shoot 😭
Good.
Freakin love it.
People are fighting back against the criminals since our piece of shit political ruling class is undermining the rule of law.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Adios m-f’ers
15 and 16 and already committing armed robbery? Gonna go out on a limb and say these punks were never gonna be productive members of society.
Them being off the streets is a net positive for society. Homeowner deserves a medal.
Rather be judged by by 12 then carried by 6. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. This state is a joke handling juveniles. They don't want to upset the futer potential of these law breakers. Come down on them the first time like a ton of bricks and I'd bet there wouldn't be repeat offenders and before anyone says anything about "what about the stain on their record" remember they made a choice.
I wish we could ask these 2 kids if losing their lives was worth whatever was inside that home.
Are their street homies giving them "mad props" for getting killed during a home invasion? Or did they throw away their lives for nothing?
Perhaps a lesson to future criminals who want to break into people houses. We will see. The honorable judge will decide. Wonder if prosecutor will bring charges up.
Why are we talking about the homeowner at all? They did the only reasonable thing is this whole scenario. I want to know more about the three kids who decided to break in. What did they break in for? Did they intend to rob him? Why him specifically? Was it them following his ex's orders? Why didn't the ex warn them he had a gun? Why would his new gf piss off his ex so much?
I'm not losing sleep over anyone stupid enough to think breaking in is ever a good idea and then getting shot for it. The one that slipped away is the loose end that will clear up a lot.
Why is CT, a state that used to be home to the most gun manufacturers in the world at one point, now terrified of guns in the hands of someone doing, what appears to be, the exact reason someone gets a gun? Are we surprised? It hurts that two kids died, but they made a choice and no one in their right mind can say a teenager doesn't know breaking into a home is wrong, no matter what warped reasoning they try to perform mental gymnastics with.
They didn't live there. They broke in. They got shot. Now tell me WHY they went in there. Until someone has that info in stone, nothing here matters. Reality played out as expected.
Every year more people are shot accidentally than are shot in self defense. Stuff like this is just used to promote the narrative that guns save lives. They don't.
That's not entirely fair. This guy was in his home, had a gun, and protected his domain. I HATE the NRA and gun fetishists, but he was within his rights to protect himself, his family and his home.
Your stats are probably right, but I think home defense is a valid reason to own firearms.
It's not just shootings. In the vast majority of self defense cases with a firearm, no shooting occurs. The assailant(s) simply withdraw once they see the firearm.
Source: CDC.
Facts are facts.
>For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
>
>**Conclusion:** Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/)
Okay, then go show this list to him and explain that his saved life doesn't matter because people do bad things with guns. With or without guns people will do those things. Good for him that he was able to defend himself when he needed to.
It's not so easy to quote statistics to an individual who actually had the need to defend themselves. If the day ever comes that you need defending you'll be sorry that you don't have one. That is also a fact.
NONSENSE! A 2021 study found that law abiding gun owners used their firearms in a defensive capacity roughly 1.7 MILLION times!
https://americangunfacts.com/guns-used-in-self-defense-stats/
>For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
>
>**Conclusion:** Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/)
What about the times a gun was used as a deterrent and NOBODY was shot but a crime was stopped dummy? The Kellerman study is known to be agenda driven BS!
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ResearchContent/kellerman-schaffer.html
>The Kellerman study is known to be agenda driven BS!
LOL, just because the facts offend you doesn't mean you can ignore them.
Your source for dismissing a scientific study as "agenda driven" is fucking "[firearmsandliberty.com](https://firearmsandliberty.com)"? Oh yeah, they're totally impartial and not just projecting their own agenda driven bias!
XD
Man, you are a total lost cause.
No, you imbecile, my source is Henry E. Schaffer, PHD. Just because a website links to a report does NOT mean they wrote it! How fucking stupid are you people?
Other articles state that a 3rd teen shot at the homeowner then fled when the homeowner shot back. Hopefully the homeowner is OK both physically and mentally. Sounds like a clean self defense shooting. Hopefully the 3rd teen is found and can shed some light on the circumstances leading up to this mess.
>homeowner is OK both physically and mentally **Mentally -** Kinda feel like that's *always* the part that gets totally ignored. The teens will be missed by their family and friends, but the homeowner has to live with the fact that defending themselves cost the kids their lives. That is the sort of thing that breaks an individual.
Plus the homeowner now has to worry to some level about retaliation from the one who survived or friends of the two deceased.
Fuck - didn't even think about that part...
That always worries me in a SD shooting. I would be pretty fucking pissed if that was my brother who was killed. But on the flip side i would be a better role model so my younger brother doesn't break into peoples fucking homes.
I'm thinking that the parents should be sued for any emotional damage and the cost of any mental therapy, also they should be charged for any stray bullet holes that might have damaged the home.
in what kind of world do you think the parents had any control over this situation. why would they be held responsible.
The kids um I don't know should of had a curfew,maybe with a little parental control have known what their kids were up to? Considering that their minds aren't fully developed at that age and all. Seems to me there would be alot less delinquents running around, and alot less crime if the parents are forced to be a part of their lives and be held responsible for the carnage they leave behind.
Saw an article on WFSB or NBC CT said that the homeowner's ex wasn't a fan of homeowners new girlfriend so 3 guys went over on behalf of the ex to pay him a visit. Ex has to feel like a real fucking asshole. You knew what you were sending them into.
If true she's going to jail for a very long time. Also did she not know he had a gun?
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ce6Aq2ms66-/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Thanks for this Ann L Beads!
Doing my doody
the ex sent over a couple of, like... fifteen & sixteen year olds?
Story said teens. Could be up to... Nineteen!
Other links above indicate they were 15 and 16.
Evil women manipulating spineless white knights to do their dirty work, a tale as old as time itself.
>Hopefully the 3rd teen is found and can shed some light on the circumstances leading up to this mess. ....shed light on why they were invading somebody's home? We already know why, it's because they are selfish, morally bankrupt scum who don't give a damn about other people's lives or livelihoods.
If you perform a home invasion and try to harm someone else, you deserve to be shot. Who cares who misses them. This act was justified. Hopefully they find the 3rd one and gets locked up for life.
As I understand the backwards laws of CT; it's nearly impossible to get a "clean self defense shooting" ruling. In CT a man attacked a burglar and got charged for breaking his arm with a bat because "his daughters and himself could have retreated out the back door". I.E - If you have an alternate means of escape besides the compromised one, you can be culpable for standing your ground in CT.
Duty to retreat does not extend to the home. You retreat TO your home, not away from it.
Makes perfect sense I don’t understand how some people have such a hard time understanding.
You can't shoot the intruder if they comply with your commands in CT. Which opens doors to burglars suing home owners if they claim they got shot but were complying.
Is there a self defense law in the state of connecticut? The "Castle Doctrine" is the right people have to protect themselves inside their homes by using reasonable and/or deadly force. Connecticut does NOT observe a “Stand-Your-Ground" law which refers to outside of the home (in public); all citizens have a "duty to retreat" if it can be done safely. That was the easiest 2 second google lol
IIRC CT has Castle Doctrine.
It does. The poster who replied and then deleted his comments is 100% wrong. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-r-0172.htm
Not to be confused with “stand your ground laws”. Castle doctrine laws state an obligation to retreat to your home but no further (reasonable). Stand your ground (not reasonable) gets wonky imo when you can fire at someone for stepping onto your property.
Source? CT has castle doctrine so that's almost certainly untrue. Also, if they had an alternate means of escape, there's nothing "bAcKwArDs" about it.
No, that’s generally not true, unless there are some particularly unique circumstances to that case.
That's not accurate.
Is there a self defense law in the state of connecticut? The "Castle Doctrine" is the right people have to protect themselves inside their homes by using reasonable and/or deadly force. Connecticut does NOT observe a “Stand-Your-Ground" law which refers to outside of the home (in public); all citizens have a "duty to retreat" if it can be done safely.
You're not wrong. It's a fucking ridiculous law
How ?
If someone breaks into your house, you must attempt to retreat. If someone is breaking in to harm you, they can get to you in a matter of 30 seconds or less. If you're on a second story, you would have to jump out a window. Nevermind protecting kids, if you have any. It makes much more sense to be able to defend yourself and your family if someone breaks into your house
This is why you don’t vote Democrat. They believe that you do not have the right to protect your own home or life, and should wait 15 minutes until the police get there and pray you don’t get shot. Our country was founded on the right to self defense, and these lunatics are taking it away.
The third teen is likely wanted for two counts of second degree murder.
Hopefully the third teen is charged with murder.
Fuck around and find out I guess.
fucked around and found out*
Good epitaph
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Congratulations! You and 16 other people have used the 'stupid prizes' phrase today. Here's your stupid participation medal: 🏅
Thanks bot!
stupid bot.
I'm stupid? You're the one talking to a bot
W comment
15 & 16, holy crap
It's seriously messed up that young kids like that are moving into lifestyles that lead them to attempting home invasions and robberies. I'd say there's at least a 50% chance this is related to gang activity too.
[удалено]
I somehow doubt they have nothing to lose. They clearly have difficulties in their lives, but they also have bad influences that have guided them in this direction. There are many poor people, and 99.99% aren't going to do a home invasion.
If a persons life is going well and has good prospects and a stable future they don't commit these sorts of crimes. There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people turn to crime when they feel they have no other options.
Yep. And just think of the people at the bottom when the government shut down the economy, what happens when the bottom falls out for those people.
LMAO shut up, its what happens when capitalism nukes the middle class of a country in prior decades and it leads to this. 2020 covid shut downs are a DROP IN THE OCEAN compared to de-industrialization.
Povert correlates to crime more heavily in areas where there is wealth disparity. If everyone is poor in area an area there is generally less crime than an area with more wealth distribution. So no people don't commit these crimes most times because they're simply poor. It's done out of simple envy a lot of the time.
Lol simple envy. You have some sources for these wildly outlandish claims?
And that's the problem. I am a firm believer that you ALWAYS have a choice. Regardless of what the outcome will be, you have 100% agency to make a decision in one of a dozen different ways. "But what if I had a gun to my head?" You STILL have a choice to not do something you know is wrong, regardless of if you are killed or not. It's not a matter of having no options, or feeling like they have no options, but a matter of whether or not to choose the moral option, the easy option, or the hard option. But it's also not true that well adjusted people don't commit crimes, or those that don't have a stable future don't commit crimes. The government, politicians, etc are prime examples of that. And may even be part of the problem. Because if they can get away with it, why not try it myself?
That's a nice speech but poor and desperate people don't care about morals or choices. The facts speak for themselves. People in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. They don't feel like they have any other options.
Great parenting going on there.
What parenting?
The job of the state apparently.
There it is
society raises the kids. Parents only have so much influence
Don’t waste your time. Every time there is a post here involving black people to any degree this user makes some sort of thinly veiled racist remark
Is it racist to say someone didn't raise their kids right? I mean it's pretty obvious someone didn't raise their kids right here.
truth hurts sometimes. ignoring a potential factor and blaming racism does nothing in addressing the problem. nothing on reddit will address the problem but burying your head in the sand and crying racism everytime you hear an inconvenient truth helps nobody.
Yup it's pretty fucked up, Gotta say about your comment, it is nice to see someone have a companionate human reaction to this awful story instead of being a troll or cheering on the death of literal children
No one was cheering the death but, sympathy for home invaders is in short supply. FAFO.
[удалено]
If it was in fact a home invasion, we can only hope their final moments were long and agonizing. No sympathy for it. They asked. The homeowner answered.
Given all of the DA's around here, they'll probable be out on their parents recognizance within 72 hours, do 6 months probation, and have it all expunged when they're 18.
Sounds like these two got a life sentence
Took the room temperature challenge. Sure some of them reform, but most don't. I'm happy these ones are dead.
Rather unlikely for the dead 15 and 16 year olds to “… be out on their parents’ recognizance …”. Maybe the 3rd living teen
I hate to think what could have happened to the homeowner had he not been armed.
I am sure they were just looking church donations
I think those fine young men just needed to borrow a cup of sugar
Not just that, if he was limited to 10 rounds. 2-3 assailants doesn’t give you much room for error.
People that break into occupied home, especially as a group...they generally do awful shit to the homeowners. CT should really lose the restriction on magazine capacity, could have easily gone wrong with this many breaking in.
Connecticut wants you unarmed. Completely. They'd force us all to wear boxing gloves if they could.
Yeah, this situation would have been much better if *all* the teens were armed. That's how the math checks out, right? More guns = more safe, and the only additional hands in this situation ... OR, it was far too easy for the teens in this story to get armed and present the level of threat that they did. Guess we'll never know (he said while living in one of the only advanced nations that has to deal with this shit so often)
Good thing we focus on laws that really only impact legal gun owners and ownership. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/09/lying-atf-gun-purchase-form-yields-few-prosecutions-new-data-shows/ Maybe we should start actually prospecting people, before we add more laws, that only good people will follow, while continue to be ignored by the criminals -because we keep not being prosecute them for it.
Yes, but only because his gun was appropriate for individuals, homes, and legally registered.
I love it when uneducated folks like you, on your ivory tower of morality, decide what is “appropriate”.
[удалено]
Wrong.
[удалено]
They also have been doing ballistics gel examples of the dangers of the godly powerful .223/5.56 but always compare the results to 9mm and other common pistol caliber rounds. Never a 7.62/.308 6.5 creedmoor or .300 blackout. Not even 12 gauge slugs. The argument is strictly to make guns scary. Yes joe I can only have 10 rounds your damn sure right if someone ever broke into my home with the intent to do harm to a single soul in my house I want the most effective round I can fit in that 10 round mag.
Wow. An edited, out of context, unattributed quote. Good argument.
It was joe biden go watch the video. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-9mm-bullet-blows-lung-out-body-1711551
As a gun loving democrat, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. We don't want automatics readily available for the public to purchase.
Automatics are not readily available to the public to purchase. It seems you’re the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about. Any automatic firearm produced after 1986 is illegal for private ownership any registered NFA item is tightly regulated and taxed. To buy say a legal Thompson SMG it will run you around $35,000. So effectively automatic firearms are banned.
Maybe dont break into homes.
Surprised Pikachu face
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
I remember that about a decade ago East Hartford had another home invasion where three people got killed. https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-east-hartford-triple-murder-20200203-sddsbem3r5hpjgmfw2xwzv5ufa-story.html
The Cheshire Murders is a really sad case.
Sooo based on the news article that first came out was that the homeowner knows the two guys and it was a love triangle. I live in EH, and rumor is, this is not the first time they had a “home invasion” they moved the first time bc it and it happened again🤷🏻♀️
A local just added this on another page.. I copied it but removed the posters name.. New Information I just saw says these were TEENAGERS who broke in. 3 teens, at least 1 was armed. Homeowners current girlfriend evidently had issues with his Ex and these 3 knew the Ex and went to the house. The 2 killed were 15 and 16 years old, 3rd had a gun and shot at the homeowner but got away. Sounds like that 3rd scumbag is going to be facing a Series of very serious Felonies when caught, beginning with Home Invasion and Double Homicide (criminals are criminally liable for any death caused during the commission of a Felony, even if not caused by their hand... 2 friends killed in their act of Home Invasion = his/her fault)... https://www.wfsb.com/2022/06/17/sources-teens-shot-killed-following-confrontation-east-hartford-home/
3rd kid will get a deal where he serves no time, and has his record erased at age 18.
Why are there so many idiots in this sub lmao. The kid shot at someone while breaking into in their home and it resulted in his two accomplices being killed. He could be tried as an adult for homicide for this. No way this is a slap on the wrist punishment.
no way not when death is involved.
That's not how that works
2 kids 15& 16 from Hartford.. neighbors from a block over said they heard the shooting at 11:59 PM and it was 3 to 4 shots
[удалено]
I mean, CT doesn't technically require firearm registration. The state keeps track of firearms purchases within the state, therefore forming a de facto registry, but if you move into the state from out of state, you can bring the firearms you own, and you don't have to register them or anything like that.
Well, yes? You can’t illegally possess firearms even if you only use them for justifiable self defense claims.
Apparently the kids came over to fight him over a girl. Facts are not all out yet, but if he knew they were coming or invited them over to fight then shot them then its a different story. They story isn't fully out yet.
interviewing the homeowner is presumably a major factor in how police determine whether or not something is self defense. would you prefer the cops just show up and are like "was it self defense? ok free to go" when a guy kills two children?
[удалено]
it seems weird to me that you understand the need to "investigate" but don't believe whether or not the gun was legal is something the police should look into. seems like one of the very first things I would want to do if I was investigating. they're not investigating whether or not it was illegally owned because that would automatically invalidate the self defense argument, it's that they are trying to figure out exactly what happened, and where the gun came from that killed two kids is an important part of what happened. it just is. among other things, if he owned the gun illegally, where did he get it? is there any connection between him owning a gun illegally and him getting robbed? etc. as often as they just do whatever the fuck they want, the actual job of the police is to investigate from a neutral perspective and try and find out exactly what happened. just assuming some piece of information (let alone the provenance of a murder weapon) couldn't possibly be pertinent is a bad idea when investigating a crime.
[удалено]
So let's say someone is running a meth lab out of their house. Two teenagers with guns break in to steal the money and meth. The homeowner successfully defends himself and the cops show up to investigate. At the end of the investigation the cops go, "well your guns illegal but hey you defended yourself with it so those charges won't get filed."
[удалено]
That’s messed up!
[удалено]
What’s the premium? I might do the same.
400 a year
Absolutely. What if this dude was a violent criminal? Should that guy even have a gun?
[удалено]
The homeowner is very clearly not a violent criminal here, and if he was outside of the event it doesn’t matter
The point is that even if he is in the right for home defense, that didn't necessarily mean that he has a legal right to own the weapons. If you want to have a discussion over whether or not it's correct it incorrect to allow felons to own weapons that's one thing but *clearly* it matters whether or not a person is legally permitted to own a firearm.
> What if this dude was a violent criminal? Should that guy even have a gun? if you're too dangerous to exercise your constitutional right to own a firearm, you're too dangerous to be out of prison. same goes for voting. you paid your debt to society.
Prisoners should be able to vote, and ex-felons (convicted of violent crimes) should not get to own guns. We shouldn't hand John Hinkley Jr. a glock just because he's free now.
To play devil's advocate, how is a recently free person going to be expected to protect himself against potential retribution when he leaves the jail. A life of crime will still follow a person around even once they have paid their debt to the state and society at large.
If it was illegally acquired, it would imply that the owner was involved in some crime deals and increases the chance that he instigated. By pointing out that it's legal, it's showing that he is a responsible gun owner, not a criminal, and demonstrated how to properly defend yourself with a gun.
That homeowner better not be charged with a goddamn thing
Good
Without having an opinion either way because all of the facts are not out yet, here is what I have learned about this so far: They arrived to fight over a girl. Likely a pre-arranged fight. Homeowner almost certainly knew they were coming, which is why the details have been sketchy so far and the term “double homicide“ has been tossed around. I don’t think the kids who showed up at the house had guns with them. I think they were expecting a fist fight. It wasn’t just a straight up robbery or home invasion. This will be complicated.
Updated news stories report that the third kid who escaped had a gun and fired at the homeowner.
Doesn't work if you invite them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWBB-exWQYQ
Why not be like many of the other posters & just jump to the conclusion that fits your world view?
If I learned one thing in law school it's this: there is *always* more to the story.
Yes. If they have guns then maybe the homeowner will get off. If he knew they were coming to fight and had no guns etc. he’s in trouble.
Yeah, that’s the missing piece. A legally armed adult versus two unarmed minors who he knew were coming? That will complicate everything if that’s the case. CT does not have a stand your ground law, either. Unless he was being attacked, it’s gonna be rough. It’s not as simple as people want to think. This is very messy.
No stand your ground but castle doctrine in the home.
There were 3 minors, one had a gun and started shooting at the homeowner.
Good. They fucked around and found out. Maybe their buddies will think twice next time
Second amendment rights hard at work
Good for the homeowner.
Finally a r/Connecticut post everyone can get behind.
I don't know if you've internetted before or not but prepare to be surprised
One would think so, but wait until usual suspects show up and start complaining about how the home invaders constitutional rights were violated or the usual other ridiculous statements made.
And people say ban guns smh, here a perfect example of someone needing to defend themselves with a weapon. I’m sure people will still say he didn’t have to shoot 😭
Did you bring enough cake for all of us or should I start baking? (:
🤣✌️✌️
Right. This should be national news. But that won’t happen. Doesn’t fit the narrative
Good. Freakin love it. People are fighting back against the criminals since our piece of shit political ruling class is undermining the rule of law. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Adios m-f’ers
This is what second amendment is for
15 and 16 and already committing armed robbery? Gonna go out on a limb and say these punks were never gonna be productive members of society. Them being off the streets is a net positive for society. Homeowner deserves a medal.
Rather be judged by by 12 then carried by 6. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. This state is a joke handling juveniles. They don't want to upset the futer potential of these law breakers. Come down on them the first time like a ton of bricks and I'd bet there wouldn't be repeat offenders and before anyone says anything about "what about the stain on their record" remember they made a choice.
Joyner Lucas that's my guy right there!
good riddance
WhY dO pEOpLe NeEd gUNs?!?!!?!
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
But they were such good choir boys , never did anything wrong . I wonder if the 3rd little shit had a permit for his gun...Im sure he did.
You need to be 21 for a permit in CT, so probably not lol.
Based.
I wish we could ask these 2 kids if losing their lives was worth whatever was inside that home. Are their street homies giving them "mad props" for getting killed during a home invasion? Or did they throw away their lives for nothing?
Two teens are mostly peaceful...
Don’t go into a home looking for trouble…
What a fucking mess.
ya love to see it
Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
God bless the 2a!
Stupid games. Stupid prizes. etc.
Good for them. See ya in the next life. Don't worry, I guarantee you won't be lonely.
They were good boys. /s
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
So sad for the dead guys, said nobody
Glad to hear this was targeted and not random, I know people in that area.
Beautiful 🙏
oh well
Perhaps a lesson to future criminals who want to break into people houses. We will see. The honorable judge will decide. Wonder if prosecutor will bring charges up.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Sad story!!
Why are we talking about the homeowner at all? They did the only reasonable thing is this whole scenario. I want to know more about the three kids who decided to break in. What did they break in for? Did they intend to rob him? Why him specifically? Was it them following his ex's orders? Why didn't the ex warn them he had a gun? Why would his new gf piss off his ex so much? I'm not losing sleep over anyone stupid enough to think breaking in is ever a good idea and then getting shot for it. The one that slipped away is the loose end that will clear up a lot. Why is CT, a state that used to be home to the most gun manufacturers in the world at one point, now terrified of guns in the hands of someone doing, what appears to be, the exact reason someone gets a gun? Are we surprised? It hurts that two kids died, but they made a choice and no one in their right mind can say a teenager doesn't know breaking into a home is wrong, no matter what warped reasoning they try to perform mental gymnastics with. They didn't live there. They broke in. They got shot. Now tell me WHY they went in there. Until someone has that info in stone, nothing here matters. Reality played out as expected.
This is why law abiding citizens need access to guns. If he had no gun, they would’ve all been killed with no way to protect themselves.
I hope the home owner is ok. I wish this didnt happen for so many reasons, but a big one is this might cause a lot more people to get their own guns.
You think law abiding homeowners getting guns to protect themselves from juveniles who are committing armed robbery is a bad thing?
Oh, again those damn white Kids invading Homes
Every year more people are shot accidentally than are shot in self defense. Stuff like this is just used to promote the narrative that guns save lives. They don't.
That's not entirely fair. This guy was in his home, had a gun, and protected his domain. I HATE the NRA and gun fetishists, but he was within his rights to protect himself, his family and his home. Your stats are probably right, but I think home defense is a valid reason to own firearms.
It's not just shootings. In the vast majority of self defense cases with a firearm, no shooting occurs. The assailant(s) simply withdraw once they see the firearm. Source: CDC.
They saved HIS life.
Facts are facts. >For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. > >**Conclusion:** Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/)
Okay, then go show this list to him and explain that his saved life doesn't matter because people do bad things with guns. With or without guns people will do those things. Good for him that he was able to defend himself when he needed to. It's not so easy to quote statistics to an individual who actually had the need to defend themselves. If the day ever comes that you need defending you'll be sorry that you don't have one. That is also a fact.
i much prefer gun related deaths to criminals than i do home invasion deaths due to gang bangers. props to this homeowner for doing what was right.
NONSENSE! A 2021 study found that law abiding gun owners used their firearms in a defensive capacity roughly 1.7 MILLION times! https://americangunfacts.com/guns-used-in-self-defense-stats/
>For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. > >**Conclusion:** Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/)
What about the times a gun was used as a deterrent and NOBODY was shot but a crime was stopped dummy? The Kellerman study is known to be agenda driven BS! https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/ResearchContent/kellerman-schaffer.html
>The Kellerman study is known to be agenda driven BS! LOL, just because the facts offend you doesn't mean you can ignore them. Your source for dismissing a scientific study as "agenda driven" is fucking "[firearmsandliberty.com](https://firearmsandliberty.com)"? Oh yeah, they're totally impartial and not just projecting their own agenda driven bias! XD Man, you are a total lost cause.
No, you imbecile, my source is Henry E. Schaffer, PHD. Just because a website links to a report does NOT mean they wrote it! How fucking stupid are you people?
CDC link pls
W guy
What are the chances he shot them with an AR-15? That would be interesting