xtian wrote:
I don't know any of that, other than the fact that I didn't really look at the video or wasn't there, someone formed to take these kind of assumptions should decide if the guy was really there "to kill her" and if killing the guy was the right response. If not, well, it's too late to revert to a safer action.
If one has called the proper authorities, and the proper, trained authorities are not there, and one is faced with a criminal (as judged by the fact that the person has committed the crime of breaking into one's home, which here is a felony) who just happens to be armed with a deadly weapon.... one is supposed to then scrunch one's eyebrows up and attempt to read the assailant's mind to determine if the assailant TRULY plans on harming or injuring one?
Should one wait until the assailant has actually stabbed or shot one to make the determination that he does, indeed, intend harm or death BEFORE one defends oneself? What if the stab or shot renders one unable to defend oneself?
This is the problem with your logic, Xtian. The victim in question did not fail to notify the proper authorities. She had been notifying them, according to the report, for 21 minutes while the assailants were seeking entrance into her home. She also had a small child that was helpless.
Then she was faced with an ARMED criminal (as proven by the fact that he had committed a felony by breaking into her home and was holding a large hunting knife) whose intentions were completely unknown to her. And EVEN IF the assailant had said, "Just give us your late husband's cancer drugs and we will leave", is there any basis that she could trust that assessment? That once she was in their power, they would not cause harm or death to her and/or her child? This was, after all, someone who had just broken into her home and was threatening her with a knife. Is it reasonable that she could trust him to tell her the truth?
My opinion is that, in this scenario, she acted exactly as she should.
She DID NOT start firing at the intruders outside of her home. In NO WAY did she attempt to hunt them. She simply defended herself and her child when the armed criminal made himself a direct threat. Nor did she attempt to go after the second person who was not a direct threat to her and her child.
And while you are encouraging the rest of us, and her, to rely on our limited mind-reading abilities, please explain how you know that HER intent was to actually kill him, and not just injure him so that he was not longer a threat? How do you know that she wasn't aiming for his shoulder, but being scared out of her wits and in a stressful situation, she didn't just panic?
It is understandable that you do not like to just go with the flow and agree with the assessment that, in this case, her actions were justified and force was necessary. However, if the sky is blue, and everyone agrees that the sky is blue, saying that it is green just to be different is simply silly.
There are SOME bad people in this world. Luckily, not the majority, but there are SOME. Sometimes, it is necessary for good people to take particularly abhorrent and regrettable measures to protect themselves from bad people.
No life is worthless. And it is saddening that it was necessary for a life to be taken in this case. However, the onus and responsibility for that lost life belongs on the shoulders of the assailants, not the young woman who was defending herself and her child.
"There is a time and a place for ruthlessness. You and I and many others on this board were trained by the government to kill, maim and terrorize people and destroy their property. However, we must always keep in mind that the only appropriate time to do so is when it will benefit multi-national corporations."--Yogi Kuddha
