Candle light vigil for....nope, sorry, thanks for playing.

You have to get within arms' reach to use a baseball bat. It requires strength and coordination to use. It doesn't work well in the close confines of a house. If you miss, there's considerable setup time before another swing can be taken. And it's probably not nearly as effective a weapon as you imagine: it requires a really big swing to inflict real damage and all your adversary has to do to thwart you is step inside that arc.

In the long-running contest between club and gun, gun is currently running a slight 218,723,233-to-0 lead.

Here's the bottom line in defending yourself - never get close enough for the person to take your weapon if you can help it.
Thus, a gun will allow you to eliminate or neutralize a threat if employed correctly. Again, will/motivation is the bottom line.

I'm not Bruce Lee. I'm not slugging it out with anyone willing to do me harm.

The only part of my defensive apparatus that will get close to the bad guy is the little copper-wrapped lead chunks I'll be transmitting to him.

Here's the whole issue - liberals don't believe that criminals have the motivation or capability to do you harm. Thus self-defense doesn't exist -
there's no real threat to you! If we as victims would just cooperate with them we could all just get along.

If you just talked to the poor guy and reasoned with him, I'm sure he'd see the error ofGAK OW! (thud).

This can be boiled down to one sentence: "Don't start none, won't be none."
Why should anyone accommodate a violent criminal who has the audacity to break into their home and assault them?
All wiggle room stopped when they crossed that threshold. Why should anyone pity this couple or grant them any quarter?
It's a mystery to me.

You don't get to declare that. Your fascisistic fantasies do not agree with the law.

No, I don't get to declare that. But a jury of the shooter's peers will. I'll put some money down on a wager saying that the shooters punishment
will be far, far less than what you would desire. Are you willing to pony up some cash? I am.

I can only speak more myself, but the best outcome is for the intruders to leave WITHOUT shots fired...which is what was happening. I wouldn't have shot 'em in the back as they were leaving.

That said, I don't lose any sleep behind them and I doubt even California liberals would throw an old man in the slammer for shooting two thieves.

Good point. I would not have shot once I was assured they were not a threat. But just having them run off into the night is not enough assurance.
My ass would be making contact with not just one but several law enforcement/emergency services then bury myself deep within my home.
That way if they came back my ass would be legally covered.
Anyway, once the shooter is aquitted or given a very light sentence then the liberals here on WF will decry Americans as bloodthirsty savages as per usual.

"Far less than I desire" is not what you asserted. It is difficult to trust someone with a wager who so routinely moves the goalposts in such a dishonest manner.

Here's a solid goalpost - shooter serves no more than one year plus one day (not counting pre-trial confinement) in any combination of county, state, or federal correctional facilities. This does not mean his sentence (though in this case it might) it means time spent actually serving it, behind bars. This does not mean the prison mental hospital - that's a total wildcard.
I mean actual prison - one year and one day, consecutively. He will serve no more than that. He can be in gen-pop or protected, it doesn't matter.
If he dies today or during that period behind bars or bonded out for pre-trial, you still lose.
This may not be "far less than you desire" but bear in mind it's less time than some people serve for burglary - isn't that funny and ironic as hell?
I don't know how things work in your country, but in most states/locations it goes:
1. local/county lockup
2. stay in county until your trial, or bond out and wait for your trial. Bear in mind while in pre-trial the charges against you may increase
if pertinent information is uncovered/discovered. Also if you want to wait it out in county versus bond out your trial may happen faster, since the county doesn't want to feed + house your ass on their dime. Capital offenses can be the exception however versus routine crimes
3. the trial - you are sentenced to state or federal prison (or nuthouse, civilian or prison) or skip out the door with a hearty "fuck you" to the system.

So, ready to pony up some cash?

How ridiculous. No, I'm not going to pay you money if he's found to be a criminal, the very thing you're pretending he's not.

If a court backs up your claim that a burglar forfeits all human rights, and that killing him is okay, then we'll deal. Or were you being full of shit when you said that?

Maybe I'm not being clear - he will indeed be a criminal but no more than somebody committing a minor non-violent rime.
Technically if you get taken in for jay-walking and booked you are a criminal.
But I'll still wager the trial (if there is one) ends in acquittal. He skips out the door like George Zimmerman. With no racial factor and the shooting victim's family not having deep pockets for a team of lawyers, this trial will get no traction. He hasn't even been arrested yet!
Monday supposedly the DA will decide if they are charging the shooter or not. If they don't think they can win or don't have some agenda to express,
he never sees one fucking day behind bars. Funny and ironic is also on Monday the DA will decide on whether to go ahead with the case of the male burglar who is being held on 1,000,000 dollar bail (ten percent of that is 100K, so I don't think he bonded out) because his participation led to the death.
I'm guessing his charges will be downgraded, but who knows.

Bottom line - shooter hasn't even been formally arrested yet! Tomorrow we find out if this whole thing is nipped in the bud and Rick's head explodes in moral outrage, possibly damaging his halo in the process. That said, if the shooter isn't charged the dead burglars family can file a civil suit, just like OJ being acquitted of murder yet still having to pay civil damages. Yes, you can made to pay restitution for something nobody could prove that you did.
It's the Justice Circus - great family fun and full of surprises!

Yeah its pretty sad that you can be found not guilt by a jury of your peers and still be sued over the same incident. That Goldman lawsuit against OJ should have been tossed out of court.

That is not just unclear, it is directly at odds with what you said earlier. You're all over the place.

Wow Rick I'll explain my position and possible scenarios as clear as I can:
1. the shooter will be acquitted. End result he's not a criminal - he was a "suspect" who is cleared of all charges. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
2. the shooter is never charged. End result he's not a criminal.

Thus if he's arrested and jailed waiting for his trial and the jury finds him guilty he's a criminal.
If he's arrested and jailed waiting for his trial and the jury finds him innocent he's not.
It sucks to be behind bars but at least your name is cleared - eventually because there are several databases that have little to do with each other, at least in Georgia.

So you admit that what you said on the last page was a crock of shit?

Just forget it Rick. I can't explain it I guess. I am getting annoyed and weary.

I'll do as I please. You can't explain it because you are inconsistent.