UTMC

OK mom asks if it's OK to shoot an intruder.

http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-2679792 ... 77235.html

Can of worms?

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Shitbag breaks in. Woman shoots him.

Can of sensationalized whoop-ass.

Oops.

edited to add: 20 minutes on the phone with 911 is a looong time.

I hate seeing a life taken.

However, when you are a fucked up stalking idiot attempting to, and actually breaking into someone's home armed with a knife. . . . well, fuck you and eat lead.

Anyone depending on the state to protect their life is likely going to lose it. Indeed, 20 minutes on the phone waiting for a response is an awful long time.

Sorry she had to make such a decision, glad she was able to.

Who said anything about 20 minutes? Did I miss something? I'm not disagreeing with what she did, but I think some people are assuming a lot of things here.
On edit: WHAT ABOUT THE GIANT FUCKING GERMAN SHEPHERD? WTF WAS HE DOING, LICKING HIS BALLS ON THE COUCH???

WHAT ABOUT THE GIANT FUCKING GERMAN SHEPHERD? WTF WAS HE DOING, LICKING HIS BALLS ON THE COUCH???

Judging by my german sheppard, yes, yes he was.

Indeed, most dogs kept as house pets are only a deterrent to the most casual of intruders, and very few dogs are trained properly for a situation like this.

More ammunition for the firearms rights lobby, hooray.

/RM

I'm not gonna bother reading that article, just from the stuff here:
She was under attack.
Her life was in danger.
She informed the proper authorities.
Things got close before the proper authorities could help her.
She defended herself.
The attacker got dead.
Regrettable, but the same could have happened to her in a very real sense.
To defend your life, lethal force is a reasonable response.
Regrettable and entirely undesired, but reasonable.

Had she been the legal owner of the firearm, with all the permits and stuff, she probably would get off on self-defense even over here.

Would have been even better if she'd just wounded him and tied him to the porch railing. Which goes against my philosophy of if you're going to shoot someone in your house, make sure yours is the only story to be told when the dust settles.

DerGolgo wrote: She defended herself.
The attacker got dead.

where you can point the difference between professionals and amateurs in my opinion and why it is better to have professionals dealing with that kind of matters if you believe that justice is not just shooting people, but I'm probably just a dangerous lefty commie.

xtian wrote:

DerGolgo wrote: She defended herself.
The attacker got dead.

where you can point the difference between professionals and amateurs in my opinion and why it is better to have professionals dealing with that kind of matters if you believe that justice is not just shooting people, but I'm probably just a dangerous lefty commie.

I absolutely agree with you.
But if the professionals cannot reach the scene on time and someone is about to get killed, they have the right to defend themselves with whatever they got.
The cops turning up, talking the attacker into surrendering and thus settling the matter would have been infinitely preferable.
But that didn't happen and, in the overall scheme of things, the victim getting out of matters alive is preferable to her getting dead.
She shot a guy in defense, she didn't plot to murder the guy. He got shot because he was attacking a young woman with a knife. Utterly and totally justified, considering the absence of the professionals. He died of the gunshot. Should be considered separately under the circumstances. The shooting was the self defence. The killing was incidental.

Some years back a 14-y.o. neighbor kid ran a guy through with a katana because the guy broke down the door to get in, after cutting the phone lines. He was an ex-boyfriend of the kid's mom or something.
He might be alive today if he hadn't cut the phone line.

DerGolgo wrote:

xtian wrote:

DerGolgo wrote: She defended herself.
The attacker got dead.

where you can point the difference between professionals and amateurs in my opinion and why it is better to have professionals dealing with that kind of matters if you believe that justice is not just shooting people, but I'm probably just a dangerous lefty commie.

I absolutely agree with you.
But if the professionals cannot reach the scene on time and someone is about to get killed, they have the right to defend themselves with whatever they got.
The cops turning up, talking the attacker into surrendering and thus settling the matter would have been infinitely preferable.
But that didn't happen and, in the overall scheme of things, the victim getting out of matters alive is preferable to her getting dead.
She shot a guy in defense, she didn't plot to murder the guy. He got shot because he was attacking a young woman with a knife. Utterly and totally justified, considering the absence of the professionals. He died of the gunshot. Should be considered separately under the circumstances. The shooting was the self defence. The killing was incidental.

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. It is trendy nowadays to state that the government and police are only limiting our right to freedom and happiness with the help of banks and that we all know individually better what's best for us, maybe they are and a little taste or rebellion is always good, but in the end and even if I know that we agree on the bottom line, there is a reason and a natural evolution why we all have special tasks assigned and why we grew a community with separated tasks, and doctors can cure and builders can built and police can protect us and mechanics can fix bikes instead of having us all hunting for food and defending the entry of our cavern and protecting our women and children from the rest of the hoar.
And I'm not really trying to make a stand or defend an opinion here, I just hate to howl with the wolves.

Xtian, in some parts of the USA, the police are half and hour or more away. So defense of one's life or limb cannot be left to them even if it were desired.

In general (not directed at Xtian):

Apart from an abstract wish that more people would say, "Fuck trying to rob that house, let's just watch the game.", I have little to no sympathy for criminals who are injured or killed by their intended victim. A criminal who invade someone's home and threatens her with violence deserves their fate.

Speaking as someone who frequently has nightmares that I've killed someone and am terrified of the authorities finding the body, no matter what I've done to hide it, and as much as I doubt there was malice in the young woman's intent when she shot that guy,
and even though I own guns and would probably shoot someone if I had due cause, I would not want to kill him. I just couldn't deal with that.
There's a sense of permanence that comes with the commitment to kill another person. It's irreversible, and perhaps my fear of that is based in my understanding that at times I would be capable of taking that irreversible step, in all it's horrible reality, despite myself.
Everybody's like, "Ah fuck him, I'd shoot his ass too," but talk is cheap.
This chick is going to have issues.

Also. the type of guy who goes after a young, recently widowed mother with a knife, or a guy who breaks into his ex-girlfriends house after cutting the phone lines is not a guy who is going to be rehabilitated.
Some guys just need to be shot.

good for her.

you never know these days if someone is on drugs or what their true intentions are, or whether they are even in their right minds. she assumed the worst and did what was necessary while contacting the police.

i wonder if she unloaded both barrels into the first guy, or if she saved the second barrel for the other guy.

hell, even if she'd aimed low he'd have still bled out before the ambulance got there.

goose wrote:when you are a fucked up stalking idiot attempting to, and actually breaking into someone's home armed with a knife. . . . well, fuck you and eat lead.

Yup


or in my case, 2 1/4" combination wrench...

Sisyphus wrote:Some years back a 14-y.o. neighbor kid ran a guy through with a katana because the guy broke down the door to get in, after cutting the phone lines.

That's some highlander shit right there.

It's true that most people are not mentally prepared to take a life, and she will have to deal with it, probably a bit of therapy to come. Better to be a survivor, not to mention the whole bonus of keeping your child safe.

/RM

roadmissile wrote:Indeed, most dogs kept as house pets are only a deterrent to the most casual of intruders, and very few dogs are trained properly for a situation like this.

And when they *ARE* trained as a guard dog, the media will show stories about "beloved pet attacks kids in yard." etc.


The moral of this story: dont trust a dog or a government official to save your ass in an emergency. Get a gun, learn how to operate it safely, and come to terms with the fact that you may need to kill someone if the shit hits the fan.

Sisyphus wrote:...and even though I own guns and would probably shoot someone if I had due cause, I would not want to kill him. I just couldn't deal with that.

If you have firearms training, you know that the rule is "shoot to neutralize." If you're a good shot, and you can operate well under an extreme stressful situation, you *MIGHT* be able to shoot the bad guy in the leg or the shoulder. But chances are you will miss, giving him an opportunity. There's a chance the sound of the shot would scare him off...but do you really want to roll those dice?

That's why a shotgun is a very effective weapon for home defense. It doesnt require a great level of skill, just point it in the general direction of your target and squeeze the trigger. The shotgun is also good because the shot will not go through the wall, the tree in the front yard, the wall of the house across the street, etc.

Sisyphus wrote:There's a sense of permanence that comes with the commitment to kill another person. It's irreversible, and perhaps my fear of that is based in my understanding that at times I would be capable of taking that irreversible step, in all it's horrible reality, despite myself.

When someone steps foot inside your house, especially if he is holding a hunting knife, you have to assume that their intent is to kill you. If you are in immediate fear of your life, you are justified in doing whatever you have to do to keep yourself safe, and that may mean dropping the bad guy where he stands.


Its kill or be killed.

And here's something similar:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... house.html

LoL trust me, I'm good under the pressure. No worries there. I'm not saying I'm a crack shot or anything but a couple months ago I managed to shoot a fox in the face who was in my chicken enclosure, about twenty yards away. After running a hundred feet to get the gun and back again.

Nice job. But for the average person, they would probably miss. I dont trust my own skills under that kind of stress situation. I'd rather increase my chances of hitting the guy, which is why I fully endorse the use of a shotgun. Perferably a tactical so you have more than one or two shots.

Hell, load it with salt for some extra flavor!

OK, forget about loading the shotgun with rock salt. Turns out its pretty useless:

http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm