Stanley should be just as responsible for her death as the shooter. He had drugs in the home. The invaders came for it but the out come didn’t turn out as planned. Stanley endangered the life of his son and the young lady. Let’s be real, home invasion can happen to anyone but more likely shootings to those who sale drugs. Those who know him are not coming forth to help by saying drugs were not a factor in her murder. When he moves on to his other girls he will continue his game and lies. He probably won’t change or blame himself for none of this. If he endanger his innocent son he certainly won’t blink about a girlfriend. I sure hope the child is still with his grandfather. I’m speaking only about Stanley because I know nothing about Johnson. RIP Amber

But if we forgave everybody even without repentance, then they could continue to hurt others for which we would still have to forgive. Therefore, if we truly forgive thieves and killers, we ARE condoning their actions by permitting them.

There really DOES have to be some sort of response to bad actions other than insisting the wronged parties have to forgive the hurters. In fact, the Bible contains many suggested punishments for specific offenses. Look it up.

Further, Christ never spoke ill of the Roman government even though it killed criminals. He, in fact, stated it got its authority from Him. He reminded the Jewish leaders they were violating the required penalties for cursing parents by allowing them to withhold help from the elderly.

Of course, people don’t have to live under Biblical teachings but those who pretend to do so might consider what it actually does say. Just because Christ was willing to suffer the just punishment for our sins does not mean those sins are forgiven without repentance.

David for better people

Nope, I never noticed that. Are you sure of it? Generally speaking, the people commenting are discussing an event, not talking to the survivors, therefore condolences aren’t warranted. (My condolences to those who lost loved ones here — if you ARE reading.) That’s sort of the idea, to share ideas with each other.

Your idea that criminals tend to be well-armed is well made. They have decided to commit crimes and aren’t bothered by the fact that it’s illegal to be using weapons to aid in the commission of those crimes which are already illegal.

Criminals break laws or they wouldn’t be criminals.

Now, if we accept the fact that there are those who don’t mind hurting people, is it really paranoid to consider resistance to being hurt?

Dialing 911 helps if the criminals will just wait for the law enforcement officers to get there. Just in case they’re not so accommodating, though, some other form of resistance might be nice. Dogs help but are smelly, messy, noisy and apt to get you sued if they bite the criminals (who might just be children who were never taught to respect other people‘s property). Armed guards should help but are expensive and also include the concept of violent response.

What to do, what to do?

Could a shotgun help? No, no, I must reject that concept because that would be paranoid — even if effective.

David for safe home owners