Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

AKs beat beer cans, even in court

Written By: Bob - Sep• 08•12

Beer muscles: always getting you in trouble.

Never bring a Bud to a gun fight:

In a case that has dragged on since the day after Christmas, a jury has found a man justified in breaking out an AK-47 in his home when confronted with threatening, rock- and beer-throwing assailants.

One of the two men threatening Edward Doug Smith the night of Dec. 26 also urinated on his porch in the confrontation that began with the exchange of text message insults.

Paris Thornton and Robert Crozier were arrested after fleeing the scene when Smith was pushed to the point he fired two shots from his automatic rifle through his open front doorway, police say.

No one was hit, and the bullets ended up in Smith’s front lawn.

The assailants had just ducked out of the doorway after forcing their way into Smith’s Roy home several times after pounding on the door, screaming threats.

Thornton had thrown a full beer can at Smith, hitting him in the back. The pair had also been throwing rocks at the house and car.

“It’s classic ‘Castle Doctrine,’ ” said Smith’s lawyer, Stephen Allred. “Your home is your castle. You have a right to defend it.”

Don’t even get me going on the idiot reporter’s “automatic weapon” comment.

If someone breaks into your home with the intention of splitting your melon with any weapon—full can of beer, rock, dirty underwear, a Lady Gaga song—you should have the unquestioned right to fire upon them. In many states, Castle Doctrine is written in a way to make it explicit that if someone is breaking into your home, you have every right to view them as a deadly threat and may respond against them with deadly force to stop the threat.

The prosecutor never should have brought this case.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Comments

  1. Steven says:

    Here’s the comment I left:

    A good explanation of terms:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8YuPPWuGW8&feature=plcp

    3) This was a case where the firearm owner used the weapon totally in a defensive manner. He had enraged assailants literally breaking down his door, he displayed the weapon, and when he fired he put 2 rounds into the lawn to warn off the home invaders instead of lighting them up – which he had every right to do.

    ###########

    The prosecutor has no business practicing law – he needs to go and clean some cat boxes or something that matches his talents – clearly the clearly written laws are too complex for him to understand.

  2. Steven says:

    Crap – sorry, I copied and pasted it in 2 parts and forgot that. Here is my entire reply:

    A few things:

    1) The prosecutor should PERSONALLY pay for the cost of the defense – this was a clear cut case of self defense. Let’s pretend the home owner had scared off his assailants with a baseball bat. I doubt there would have BEEN a
    prosecution.

    If the prosecutor cannot understand basic black letter law he or she needs to find a new line of work.

    I am totally a “support LEOs and ADAs” type of guy – but the idiots that abuse that power we entrust them with – they need to go.

    2) The AK-47 that was used is not an “automatic rifle”. An automatice rifle is a battle rifle. One trigger pull per bullet is a semi-automatic rifle. Besides the aestheic look of the AK used, it is no different than many HUNTING rifles. A bolt action requires a bolt pull per shot, but many hunting rifles are semi-automatic.

    Also – despite the mystique of the AK-47, it is not, by any means, an “Uber weapon”. The 7.62mm x 39mm (Round diameter x cartridge length) is a cut down rifle round – it is meant to be used and only really accurate at close to mid ranges (I wouldn’t use it beyond 250-300m).

    Many hunting rifle rounds are accurate out to 500-800m and hit with FAR more force.

    A good explanation of terms:
    http://www.youtube.com/​watch?v=W8YuPPWuGW8&feature​=plcp

    3) This was a case where the firearm owner used the weapon totally in a defensive manner. He had enraged assailants literally breaking down his door, he displayed the weapon, and when he fired he put 2 rounds into the lawn to warn off the home invaders instead of lighting them up – which he had every right to do.

    ###########

    The prosecutor has no business practicing law – he needs to go and clean some cat boxes or something that matches his talents – clearly the clearly written laws are too complex for him to understand.