| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seemed to have worked out ok.Hiding in a crawl space, where she could be trapped and forced to use potentially lethal violence in front of children...
In what bizarre-o land is does nine year old children being witness to a shooting = things having worked out ok?
It certainly isn't the worst of all possible outcomes, but things worked out okay, is pretty far of in the direction of "guy never breaks in in the first place, family sleeps safely though the night and have pancakes for breakfast."
not purchasing an escape ladder so she can get her self and the children out...So you're going to unravel an escape ladder and get two sleepy 9 year old kids down it, without them falling off it and without alerting the guy with a crowbar where you are?
Uhm.. no.
Funny, my school seemed to be able to get some two hundred odd students out of the building at two in the morning, during raining in about three minutes... I guess that is what you'd called trained preparedness.
not having purchased a very loud panic button based alarm...
They are useless. People assume they are car alarms and ignore them.
When i get my place, this is what burglars will hear upon opening the door...
Yes alarms have little effect if your neighbours don't know you, and don't care for you, but neighbourhood which spend time building close relationships do respond to such things. I make a concious choice to investigate every alarm that sounds within ear shot, and we have agreements with neighbours to come around, contact the police and check if we hear one another alarms.
also their is also plenty of academic study that has shown the usefulness of measure such as alarms in detering intrusion to begin with , and causing intrusion to stop once triggered.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm shocked at the amount of sympathy for this home invader. A man broke into someone elses home and encountered resistance. A scared mother protected herself and her children. Would it have been better or worse had she beat the crap out if him with a baseball bat? How about if she was an off duty cop? Seriously, the perp could have easily avoided this by choosing a different line of work. Being a criminal (in the American south no less) has certain inherent risk. Being shot is on this list. Don't want to get shot? Stay out of other peoples houses. Its that easy. He gets no sympathy from me.
Why do you need to not notify him where you are? Most home invaders will not be actively looking for a confrontation.
And unfortunately they're not polite enough to wear signs.
"I'm just here for the plasma tv"
"I rob your house and all i'll take is this lousey t shirt"
"Don't worry I'm in a monogomous relationship"
"Don't worry I let witnesses live"
You being out of the house means they have free reign until the police show up. That is a win for them. They also know that the cops have probably already been alerted, so they wont be spending too much time at your place after they hear it.
The guy apparently went through most of the house before finding them. He had more than enough opportunity to snag something for the fence and split.
You let your s%*+ get stolen, you get out safely, and your insurance will cover major losses. Its much better than risking a confrontation, traumatizing your children, and possibly not getting the upper hand.
If that wasn't the plan, he would have been shot in the living room.
Here's hoping that as well. You know, seeing as you just stated your plans to murder someone. On the other hand public prosecutors are probably very over worked and might not have the time to do a research into your online posts. Likely they'd call it justified homicide though.If I ever have to shoot someone in my house I'll be damn sure they don't survive the encounter. Otherwise the jackass will probably end up suing me and probably winning based on our F'd up justice system.
Here's hoping it never comes to that.
I'm Ex military. It's not something I want to do, but I came to terms with it a long time ago should the need arise.
Now if the guy runs away upon seeing me I'd happily let them. I'd only shoot someone if they physically threatened myself or someone else.
In what bizarre-o land is does nine year old children being witness to a shooting = things having worked out ok?
On the offhand chance they weren't in the corner with their eyes shut and a blanket over them I'm pretty sure they've seen worse in video games.
Funny, my school seemed to be able to get some two hundred odd students out of the building at two in the morning, during raining in about three minutes... I guess that is what you'd called trained preparedness.
How old were the kids?
DId you do it quietely? Riiight
And a drill. Actually threaten their lives and see how quickly it goes.
Yes alarms have little effect if your neighbours don't know you, and don't care for you, but neighbourhood which spend time building close relationships do respond to such things.
No, because they go off so often that people assume its a false alarm.
also their is also plenty of academic study that has shown the usefulness of measure such as alarms in detering intrusion to begin with , and causing intrusion to stop once triggered.
They're less effective the more they're run into. Most burglars can shut off my car alarm before i can.
Lets see, a 7% chance this guy gets violent with me and my family, or a 90% chance of killing him...
More dakka please.
That's a better statement to make in a public forum IMO. The first quote sounds like you'd deliver the coup de grace if you found them still alive after they dropped after the first exchange. As a general rule shooting someone after they're no longer a threat is considered murder even if the guy you're shooting is the worst possible scumbag.Here's hoping that as well. You know, seeing as you just stated your plans to murder someone. On the other hand public prosecutors are probably very over worked and might not have the time to do a research into your online posts. Likely they'd call it justified homicide though.If I ever have to shoot someone in my house I'll be damn sure they don't survive the encounter. Otherwise the jackass will probably end up suing me and probably winning based on our F'd up justice system.
Here's hoping it never comes to that.
I'm Ex military. It's not something I want to do, but I came to terms with it a long time ago should the need arise.
Now if the guy runs away upon seeing me I'd happily let them. I'd only shoot someone if they physically threatened myself or someone else.
Fair enough, but I'm a good shot. I won't have the need to coup de Grace.
I didn't mean to sound like I wouldn't let him make the smart decision and run away. I just meant that guns aren't for wounding people.
Also, I wouldn't be hiding in the corner. I'd be yelling to the perp that I have a gun an he needs to get out. Shooting them would be the last option and only if extremely necessary.
Why do you need to not notify him where you are? Most home invaders will not be actively looking for a confrontation.And unfortunately they're not polite enough to wear signs.
"I'm just here for the plasma tv"
"I rob your house and all i'll take is this lousey t shirt"
"Don't worry I'm in a monogomous relationship"
"Don't worry I let witnesses live"You being out of the house means they have free reign until the police show up. That is a win for them. They also know that the cops have probably already been alerted, so they wont be spending too much time at your place after they hear it.The guy apparently went through most of the house before finding them. He had more than enough opportunity to snag something for the fence and split.
You let your s%*+ get stolen, you get out safely, and your insurance will cover major losses. Its much better than risking a confrontation, traumatizing your children, and possibly not getting the upper hand.If that wasn't the plan, he would have been shot in the living room.
Right, so being in the house with this guy was the worst possible thing the family could have done, because he was likely one of the vast minority of home invaders that was not there to rob something. If you stay in the house you prolong the time he has to find and hurt you. He is unlikely to chase you outside.
That's a better statement to make in a public forum IMO. The first quote sounds like you'd deliver the coup de grace if you found them still alive after they dropped after the first exchange. As a general rule shooting someone after they're no longer a threat is considered murder even if the guy you're shooting is the worst possible scumbag.Here's hoping that as well. You know, seeing as you just stated your plans to murder someone. On the other hand public prosecutors are probably very over worked and might not have the time to do a research into your online posts. Likely they'd call it justified homicide though.If I ever have to shoot someone in my house I'll be damn sure they don't survive the encounter. Otherwise the jackass will probably end up suing me and probably winning based on our F'd up justice system.
Here's hoping it never comes to that.
I'm Ex military. It's not something I want to do, but I came to terms with it a long time ago should the need arise.
Now if the guy runs away upon seeing me I'd happily let them. I'd only shoot someone if they physically threatened myself or someone else.
Fair enough, but I'm a good shot. I won't have the need to coup de Grace.
I didn't mean to sound like I wouldn't let him make the smart decision and run away. I just meant that guns aren't for wounding people.
Also, I wouldn't be hiding in the corner. I'd be yelling to the perp that I have a gun an he needs to get out. Shooting them would be the last option and only if extremely necessary.
Cont...
Though I have training. I'm assuming this woman didn't and panicked. She was literally backed into a corner.
Supposing there was no viable escape route? I mean it was likely dark and I sure as heck wouldn't want to climb out a window, especially if I wasn't sure how many people there are or even the actual reason they're breaking into my house. Maybe they want to rob me. Maybe they've my house for another criminal's house or that of a witness and they're their to kill whoever is inside. Not likely but people don't really think logically when they're woken up in the middle of the night by a loud noise (again I have no idea when the attack occurred).
What is she doing living in that house? If you can be cornered by an intruder, then she can be cornered by fire. House fires are far more dangerous than intuders, they kill and injure many more people, and you can shot them. if your worried enough about the relatively insignificant risk of being attacked by a burgler, why are you not ensuring you cannot be trapped in your house by either an intruder or a fire.
Ofcause, they might have mistaken your home for that of another criminal, and invaded it with guns intending to kill you and your family....And a meteorite might hit your car tomorrow, I mean there are documented cases of that happening too..
Again we don't really have enough details to draw any conclusions but there are plenty of other reasons someone would break into someone's house other then rob them. Perhaps he was their to rape her. Really there's no way for her to know an intruder's intent.
True, the intruder might have been their to rape her...
But, if she was going to be raped, it is far more likely that it would be by a partner or a friend, who has not used violence, but rather has had sex with them without consent in some other way(victim having been inebriated, or asleep). Even in the US, with is sickeningly high rate of rape over the last decade, home invasion for the purpose of rape is a rare occurrence.
I disagree. There are lots of ways this could have turned out worse, given the factors we know about I'd rather have the kids knowing that their mother is willing to do anything to protect them then never feeling safe anywhere again.
I specificially said it could have been much worse. But their being worse possible outcomes does not make it a good outcome. Thats like saying that being diagnosed with prostate cancer is good, cause it could have been pancreatic cancer.
Right, so being in the house with this guy was the worst possible thing the family could have done, because he was likely one of the vast minority of home invaders that was not there to rob something. If you stay in the house you prolong the time he has to find and hurt you. He is unlikely to chase you outside.
Are you from somewhere that the houses don't usually have a second story?
You can't just teleport the kids outside. He came in the front door, probably into the living room and in all likelyhood blocking every exit route from the kids bedrooms to the exit that doesn't involve dropping out of a window and breaking your legs. There is, in all likelyhood, enough filthy lucre there for him to grab and go if that's what he wants. He decided to break into someone's house, he decided not to grab and go. This is 100% on him.
|
Other assumptions; that an intruder equals a danger. Violence rates for burgleries is around 7%, and of those 61% the burgler was unarmed. In only twelve 12% of violent burglaries, does the assailant have a firearm. Most burglers are not looking for a violent outcome. So just cause you've been confronted, does not mean you are in danger.
However, if there's an intruder in your house, assuming that he won't be violent would be very stupid. If you go up to him and say "Boo!" then perhaps 88% of the time he'll run away, but you're still left with 12% of him killing your dumb ass. And given that this dude took four shots to the face and was still coming, the smart money seems to be on him being violent.
Why do you need to not notify him where you are? Most home invaders will not be actively looking for a confrontation.And unfortunately they're not polite enough to wear signs.
"I'm just here for the plasma tv"
"I rob your house and all i'll take is this lousey t shirt"
"Don't worry I'm in a monogomous relationship"
"Don't worry I let witnesses live"You being out of the house means they have free reign until the police show up. That is a win for them. They also know that the cops have probably already been alerted, so they wont be spending too much time at your place after they hear it.The guy apparently went through most of the house before finding them. He had more than enough opportunity to snag something for the fence and split.
You let your s%*+ get stolen, you get out safely, and your insurance will cover major losses. Its much better than risking a confrontation, traumatizing your children, and possibly not getting the upper hand.If that wasn't the plan, he would have been shot in the living room.
Your fundamentally misunderstanding two things about crime here. Firstly, no one needs to kill eye witnesses. Eye witnesses are lousy. There one of the worst kinds of evidence. They change their stories, they can't be sure what they saw, they get confused and angry and scared when cross examined.
Secondly, criminals don't carry weapons to hurt victims of crime. They do it to because they can use the fear of the weapon to get what they want, and more importantly, because the weapon grabs the attention of the victim. in cases where weapons are used, victims can almost always identify the weapon with great clarity and accuracy, but are their ability to accurately recall other details suffers greatly.
Why do you need to not notify him where you are? Most home invaders will not be actively looking for a confrontation.And unfortunately they're not polite enough to wear signs.
"I'm just here for the plasma tv"
"I rob your house and all i'll take is this lousey t shirt"
"Don't worry I'm in a monogomous relationship"
"Don't worry I let witnesses live"You being out of the house means they have free reign until the police show up. That is a win for them. They also know that the cops have probably already been alerted, so they wont be spending too much time at your place after they hear it.The guy apparently went through most of the house before finding them. He had more than enough opportunity to snag something for the fence and split.
You let your s%*+ get stolen, you get out safely, and your insurance will cover major losses. Its much better than risking a confrontation, traumatizing your children, and possibly not getting the upper hand.If that wasn't the plan, he would have been shot in the living room.
Your fundamentally misunderstanding two things about crime here. Firstly, no one needs to kill eye witnesses. Eye witnesses are lousy. There one of the worst kinds of evidence. They change their stories, they can't be sure what they saw, they get confused and angry and scared when cross examined.
Secondly, criminals don't carry weapons to hurt victims of crime. They do it to because they can use the fear of the weapon to get what they want, and more importantly, because the weapon grabs the attention of the victim. in cases where weapons are used, victims can almost always identify the weapon with great clarity and accuracy, but are their ability to accurately recall other details suffers greatly.
Source?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your fundamentally misunderstanding two things about crime here.
As opposed to your fundamental misunderstanding of humanity. You cannot deal with people as if they were rational. They're not.
I take it you're not in the states?
Firstly, no one needs to kill eye witnesses. Eye witnesses are lousy. There one of the worst kinds of evidence. They change their stories, they can't be sure what they saw, they get confused and angry and scared when cross examined.
You are assuming that the criminals are operating under that paradigm. Furthermore, you are assuming that the woman can KNOW that that particular individual is operating under that paradigm.
Secondly, criminals don't carry weapons to hurt victims of crime. They do it to because they can use the fear of the weapon to get what they want, and more importantly, because the weapon grabs the attention of the victim.
And oddly enough when the dangerous weapon does not intimidate the person involved, oh look, it has a handy dandy secondary use of being able to inflict grievous harm on a person.
in cases where weapons are used, victims can almost always identify the weapon with great clarity and accuracy, but are their ability to accurately recall other details suffers greatly.
The guy was out on parole for assault and was caught breaking into a house with a weapon. I don't think we're dealing with a rhodes scholar whose up on the reliability statistics of eye witnesses.
Frankly, if a black guy is in the defendants chair and the white woman points and says "thats the guy" he's going to jail.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zombieneighbor, I find every single post you've made on this topic to be offensive to my morals. I think it highlights a vastly different way of looking at the world.
If you are a criminal and are shot as a result of breaking into someone's house (whether to hurt them, rob them, rape them, ect) I have zero sympathy for you. I don't care if you have no intention of harming them and are only in it for the stuff. If you are shot and killed I have no sympathy for you. The moment you make the decision to invade someone's home or intentionally harm them I could care less if you die as a result. Period. End of story.
I don't think a home invasion robber being shot is a negative - at all. I don't believe children need to have all violence hidden from them. I think seeing your mother / father defend you and your home is probably a wash of good and bad.
I absolutely disagree with everything you've said about attempting to flee, having an escape plan, escape ladders, ect. I find the entire idea ridiculous. I am not obligated to flee my own home in the face of an invader so he isn't harmed in the course of stealing what I have worked hard to gain. I think even retreating into an attic / crawl space / whatever is an incredibly generous action to the robber. If you kick in my door I'm meeting you in the living room with a weapon, and if your first action is not to flee then my first action is to shoot. If you has a weapon we aren't even getting that far into it.
I don't care about the criminals rights, because he does not care about my own. I'm not bloodthirsty. I don't desire to inflict harm upon others. I do however believe - firmly - that as a whole a societal retreat from meeting violence with violence and invasion with flight is pathetic. I have no desire to seek conflict, but nor am I going to flee in the face of it. The suggestion that I should, that I am in some way obligated to, clashes entirely with everything I believe about what it means to live your life.
Right, so being in the house with this guy was the worst possible thing the family could have done, because he was likely one of the vast minority of home invaders that was not there to rob something. If you stay in the house you prolong the time he has to find and hurt you. He is unlikely to chase you outside.Are you from somewhere that the houses don't usually have a second story?
You can't just teleport the kids outside. He came in the front door, probably into the living room and in all likelyhood blocking every exit route from the kids bedrooms to the exit that doesn't involve dropping out of a window and breaking your legs. There is, in all likelyhood, enough filthy lucre there for him to grab and go if that's what he wants. He decided to break into someone's house, he decided not to grab and go. This is 100% on him.
Every multi-story building must have multiple sources of egress from upper floors. Every bedroom on any floor must have 2 exits from the house, usually with a window a firefighter in full gear can fit through. That $200-$500 pistol purchase could have been a few fire safety ladders designed for exactly this occasion, and they would have taken about as long to get out and set up as a properly stored gun. Many places require appartments with multiple stories to have these already, if they don't have a fire escape. As has already been said, if the burgurlar could trap them, so could a fire, and a gun wont do anything for you in a fire.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zombieneighbours, your problem is that that you are purely looking at statistics. Statistics don't really matter in this situations. If there is only a 0.01% chance that the guy who has broken into my home is going to attempt to harm me or my family, then that's 0.01% too damn high, and I'm going to defend myself and my family as if that percentage was 100%. Because if I assume that he's one of the 99.99% and I'm wrong, then I'm dead and my family is dead. I'll come right out and say what others have tiptoed around: Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zombieneighbor, I find every single post you've made on this topic to be offensive to my morals. I think it highlights a vastly different way of looking at the world.
If you are a criminal and are shot as a result of breaking into someone's house (whether to hurt them, rob them, rape them, ect) I have zero sympathy for you. I don't care if you have no intention of harming them and are only in it for the stuff. If you are shot and killed I have no sympathy for you. The moment you make the decision to invade someone's home or intentionally harm them I could care less if you die as a result. Period. End of story.
I don't think a home invasion robber being shot is a negative - at all. I don't believe children need to have all violence hidden from them. I think seeing your mother / father defend you and your home is probably a wash of good and bad.
I absolutely disagree with everything you've said about attempting to flee, having an escape plan, escape ladders, ect. I find the entire idea ridiculous. I am not obligated to flee my own home in the face of an invader so he isn't harmed in the course of stealing what I have worked hard to gain. I think even retreating into an attic / crawl space / whatever is an incredibly generous action to the robber. If you kick in my door I'm meeting you in the living room with a weapon, and if your first action is not to flee then my first action is to shoot. If you has a weapon we aren't even getting that far into it.
I don't care about the criminals rights, because he does not care about my own. I'm not bloodthirsty. I don't desire to inflict harm upon others. I do however believe - firmly - that as a whole a societal retreat from meeting violence with violence and invasion with flight is pathetic. I have no desire to seek conflict, but nor am I going to flee in the face of it. The suggestion that I should, that I am in some way obligated to, clashes entirely with everything I believe about what it means to live your life.
And this is why you are more than twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime and suffer a serious injury or death.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Zombieneighbours, your problem is that that you are purely looking at statistics. Statistics don't really matter in this situations. If there is only a 0.01% chance that the guy who has broken into my home is going to attempt to harm me or my family, then that's 0.01% too damn high, and I'm going to defend myself and my family as if that percentage was 100%. Because if I assume that he's one of the 99.99% and I'm wrong, then I'm dead and my family is dead. I'll come right out and say what others have tiptoed around: Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.
I haven't seen Zombieneighbours argue that she shouldn't have fired, or that she wasn't justified. He has argued that she should have previously set up her home so that that situation could not occur. There is a big difference. Once you are cornered with your gun, you are perfectly justified in using it. But not being cornered in the first place should be the optimal response.
Every multi-story building must have multiple sources of egress from upper floors.
That doesn't mean that they're not blockable by someone standing at a particular point. Every house I've been in has a central point from which you can block access from the bedrooms to the escape: its even easier to do if you can't let yourself get within line of sight of the burglar.
Every bedroom on any floor must have 2 exits from the house, usually with a window a firefighter in full gear can fit through. That $200-$500 pistol purchase could have been a few fire safety ladders designed for exactly this occasion
For sleepy, 9 year old kids to climb out of, possibly slipping and falling, and making enough racket to wake the dead? No.
You're treating "flee" as if it were a no risk proposition. It is not. It puts the risk of on the woman and her children, in order to make things safer for the burglar.
Many places require appartments with multiple stories to have these already, if they don't have a fire escape. As has already been said, if the burgurlar could trap them, so could a fire, and a gun wont do anything for you in a fire.
The house has been on tv fairly frequently. Its a 2.5 story mcmansion. There was no fire escape.
You know what...when somebody comes in your house and is approaching your children threatingly with a weapon in hand...let me know how it goes defending them with puppies and rainbows.
Oh thats right...you wont be around to tell me.
Every multi-story building must have multiple sources of egress from upper floors.That doesn't mean that they're not blockable by someone standing at a particular point. Every house I've been in has a central point from which you can block access from the bedrooms to the escape: its even easier to do if you can't let yourself get within line of sight of the burglar.
Every bedroom on any floor must have 2 exits from the house, usually with a window a firefighter in full gear can fit through. That $200-$500 pistol purchase could have been a few fire safety ladders designed for exactly this occasionFor sleepy, 9 year old kids to climb out of, possibly slipping and falling, and making enough racket to wake the dead? No.
You're treating "flee" as if it were a no risk proposition. It is not. It puts the risk of on the woman and her children, in order to make things safer for the burglar.
SO forcing a confrontation with an unknown number of people with unknown weapons while you have a single pistol, 6 rounds, and 2 kids to protect is lower risk than hoping those kids are not morons and can use a ladder?
You know what...when somebody comes in your house and is approaching your children threatingly with a weapon in hand...let me know how it goes defending them with puppies and rainbows.
Oh thats right...you wont be around to tell me.
Right, I will have used my primary defense mechanism, my escape route, to be no where near you, or the assailent, well before he could approach my kids threateningly
Once again, no one is saying she shouldn't have fired. People are saying she shouldn't have hid, but retreated, and she should have set up her home so that she wasn't cornered.
Leaving aside the question of the criminal's rights and/or sympathy for them, do you really think that's the best course of action if you can flee safely? Especially if you have children present? Forcing the confrontation when you can avoid it is more likely to get you hurt or killed.
If the options are,
1. Flee my home - potentially running into other assailants outside
or
2. Stand my ground - where I can dictate virtually everything about the encounter on favorable/familiar ground and well armed.
My choice is always going to be #2.
And this is why you are more than twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime and suffer a serious injury or death.
1. Source on this bogus statistic?
2. Regardless of your source that statistic is meaningless because it does not in any way account for anything about me personally - physical condition, training, experience, armament, ect.3. Even if your statistic could measure this I'd take that trade off.
SO forcing a confrontation with an unknown number of people with unknown weapons while you have a single pistol, 6 rounds, and 2 kids to protect is lower risk than hoping those kids are not morons and can use a ladder?
A foldable alluminum ladder that was tossed out of the window in a real hurry ? Yes.
If you're going to assume more than one assailant, why not one outside the house where your kids are now running, scared and alone?
"forcing a confronation" is hardly an honest description of what happened. She retreated as far as she could while still being inside. The guy had 3/4 of the house to rummage through uncontested. He could have taken something and didnt. he probably walked right past a tv, dvd, player, and a few other valuables and kept comming. What was she supposed to conclude?
|
My brother and six of his friends were robbed at gunpoint a couple of years ago. The robber made them all lie face down on the floor of a room while he collected their valuables. He made my brother hold the bag.
One of his victims was carrying a concealed pistol (he was legally licensed to do so). The robber noticed his shoulder holster and opened fire at close range. So did the concealed carrier. The robber emptied his revolver, hitting the victim in the hands and side. The victim's gun jammed after his first shot. After he cleared the jam, he managed to hit the robber in the hand, blowing off one of his fingers. The robber then ran.
The police managed to trace the blood trail to an apartment above the scene of the crime and caught the guy hiding in his girlfriend's bathtub.
It turned out that the perpetrator had been paroled from prison one month previously. He had gotten a gun illegally. If my brother's friend hadn't been legally armed, they would have all been at the robber's mercy.
Almost everybody who was there at the time has now gotten a concealed carry permit. And happily, the armed victim has recovered completely from his wounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zombiebeighbors:
I think we see what happens here when you treat statistics like gospel. You are unable to embrace the no-win scenario, or the no-run scenario as we have here.
I'm sure it would have given her little comfort that she only had a 12% (or whatever objective stat) chance she or her children were going to get hurt, if in fact they were harmed and had she not given the perp a live demonstration of Darwin's theories on natural selection.
The assertion that this woman did not in fact do everything in her power to avoid a confrontation (shoulda bought a ladder...wtf?!) is ludicrous.
That you have to cling to this in order to keep your misguided notions about firearms and those that own them is telling.
My brother and six of his friends were robbed at gunpoint a couple of years ago. The robber made them all lie face down on the floor of a room while he collected their valuables. He made my brother hold the bag.
One of his victims was carrying a concealed pistol (he was legally licensed to do so). The robber noticed his shoulder holster and opened fire at close range. So did the concealed carrier. The robber emptied his revolver, hitting the victim in the hands and side. The victim's gun jammed after his first shot. After he cleared the jam, he managed to hit the robber in the hand, blowing off one of his fingers. The robber then ran.
The police managed to trace the blood trail to an apartment above the scene of the crime and caught the guy hiding in his girlfriend's bathtub.
It turned out that the perpetrator had been paroled from prison one month previously. He had gotten a gun illegally. If my brother's friend hadn't been legally armed, they would have all been at the robber's mercy.
Almost everybody who was there at the time has now gotten a concealed carry permit. And happily, the armed victim has recovered completely from his wounds.
Or the robber would have collected the valuables and left with no one getting hurt. In this case it's possible that being armed got your brother's friend shot and could have gotten him killed.
Or th perp could have run when he saw the holster, as opposed to opening fire like someone criminally insane.
Or the perp could have robbed them blind then executed them all.
Or the perp could have a moment of conscience and turned himself in.
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
|
|
My brother and six of his friends were robbed at gunpoint a couple of years ago. The robber made them all lie face down on the floor of a room while he collected their valuables. He made my brother hold the bag.
One of his victims was carrying a concealed pistol (he was legally licensed to do so). The robber noticed his shoulder holster and opened fire at close range. So did the concealed carrier. The robber emptied his revolver, hitting the victim in the hands and side. The victim's gun jammed after his first shot. After he cleared the jam, he managed to hit the robber in the hand, blowing off one of his fingers. The robber then ran.
The police managed to trace the blood trail to an apartment above the scene of the crime and caught the guy hiding in his girlfriend's bathtub.
It turned out that the perpetrator had been paroled from prison one month previously. He had gotten a gun illegally. If my brother's friend hadn't been legally armed, they would have all been at the robber's mercy.
Almost everybody who was there at the time has now gotten a concealed carry permit. And happily, the armed victim has recovered completely from his wounds.
Or the robber would have collected the valuables and left with no one getting hurt. In this case it's possible that being armed got your brother's friend shot and could have gotten him killed.
Or th perp could have run when he saw the holster, as opposed to opening fire like someone criminally insane.
Or the perp could have robbed them blind then executed them all.
Or the perp could have a moment of conscience and turned himself in.
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Exactly. That's why I specifically said that they would have been "at the robber's mercy". Should my brother have trusted his life to the mercy of an armed robber? Especially one that was so obviously bad at making decisions?
Agreed. There are many possibilities.
OTOH, the thought process "I got shot during a robbery when the perp noticed my gun. Good thing I was carrying." seems really odd to me.
Alternative thought processes:
"Wow, this nutjob held my buddies and I at gunpoint then started shooting even though I hadn't even drawn my weapon. I'm glad I was able to fight back and defend myself and others against him."
"I'm glad this lunatic - who was willing and able to shoot someone in the course of a robbery - was apprehended in part because I was armed."
"Man, I got shot, but it could have been a lot worse. He could have executed us."
"If I'd been faster on the draw when he came in I could have stopped him and protected myself and my friends."
Ect.
Feeling helpless is a pretty rotten situation and so I can sympathize with the gun owners desire to arm themselves, but I'm sure it's been pointed out several times already that confrontation often ends with someone hurt or killed, and it's often the victim. I should note that the thing I liked about this story is that the victim didn't force a confrontation, she retreated and hid, thus giving the perp the chance to take something and leave uncontested.
This is the plan I use; All of my valuables are on the main and basement levels of my house. If a person breaks in and stays on those 2 levels, he can take what he wants and leave. If he comes upstairs where my fiance and I sleep, different story. I will assume he intends bodily harm, and confront him with my pistol.