Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Kthulhu wrote:
Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.

And what if said 'criminal' is not a criminal at all, but someone with a mental health issue? Or a local child with poor boundary issues. What if they are a dementia sufferer. I've had three breakins in houses I have been living in, during my life one was a robbery, the other two a neighbour suffering from dementia.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.
And what if said 'criminal' is not a criminal at all, but someone with a mental health issue? Or a local child with poor boundary issues. What if they are a dementia sufferer. I've had three breakins in houses I have been living in, during my life one was a robbery, the other two a neighbour suffering from dementia.

Well I'd def shoot it in the face then!

Old people. Euck.
Almost as bad as dogs.

The Exchange

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!
Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.

notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?


Andrew R wrote:
notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?

That you have difficulty with reading comprehension?

At BEST, in this thread, you'll hear people reticent to condemn the intruder based on the level of details released. Most of us, including myself since I suppose I wasn't clear, think some person probably got what was coming to him.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!
Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.
notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?

That we're pinko mutant commie traitors, Andrew. Obviously.

Seriously, if you want to accuse everyone who disagrees with your shallow viewpoint of being unAmerican criminal-lovers, go for it. Please. Say it out loud.

"I always made one prayer to God, a very short one..."

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
mordion wrote:
Either I'm misunderstand you, or you're misunderstanding me. Cars are legally sold that are not engine limited to 80mph, they are legally sold without breathalyzers keyed to the ignition, and cigarettes are also legally sold. These are examples of the state deciding personal preference is more important than safety.

In all of these cases, the state regulates safety in other manners than the ones you outline. Car speed is regulated by force of law, and enforced by law enforcement officers. The same goes for blood alcohol content while driving - and, notably, breathalyzers are sometimes installed in cars driven by those with prior DUI convictions. Cigarette use is heavily restricted in public areas, and there are restrictions on who may purchase them.

Quote:
My point is that personal preference/desire is a reason, and a 'real reason' at that.

It is among the least of reasons.

Quote:
I bring it up solely to refute the point that 'there is no reason for owning a 30 round magazine.' My point is NOT that just because someone wants to own something (ie has a reason to own something) society is obligated to ignore any negative consequences of that ownership.
In that case, point taken. Allow me to rephrase my argument to, "There is precious little reason for owning a 30-round magazine, and plenty of reasons that they ought to be banned - reasons which far outweigh the personal desire for convenience."

There is a law against shooting people, against shooting in many areas/situations, schools are a "gun free zone". There are restrictions on guns already so you fail to prove a thing there.

There is no reason to own and use many things and plenty reasons to ban MANY things. should all of those things be banned?

The Exchange

Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!
Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.
notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?

That we're pinko mutant commie traitors, Andrew. Obviously.

Seriously, if you want to accuse everyone who disagrees with your shallow viewpoint of being unAmerican criminal-lovers, go for it. Please. Say it out loud.

"I always made one prayer to God, a very short one..."

Getting a little defensive about your defending the criminal now?

The Exchange

meatrace wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?

That you have difficulty with reading comprehension?

At BEST, in this thread, you'll hear people reticent to condemn the intruder based on the level of details released. Most of us, including myself since I suppose I wasn't clear, think some person probably got what was coming to him.

That is not what i got from some here, and if you lack that sympathy good. You did however make a statement that seemed to be against police in general.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.
And what if said 'criminal' is not a criminal at all, but someone with a mental health issue? Or a local child with poor boundary issues. What if they are a dementia sufferer. I've had three breakins in houses I have been living in, during my life one was a robbery, the other two a neighbour suffering from dementia.

Then they need a more capable handler. What if you stand there thinking "what if" while the "maybe harmless" kills or rapes a child? Or is it ok to gamble with other peoples kids to you? You want to risk your safety and life have at it but do not dare try to force that russian roulette of "maybe" on others


Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!
Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.
notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?

That we're pinko mutant commie traitors, Andrew. Obviously.

Seriously, if you want to accuse everyone who disagrees with your shallow viewpoint of being unAmerican criminal-lovers, go for it. Please. Say it out loud.

"I always made one prayer to God, a very short one..."

"And he has granted it."

Sovereign Court

Zombieneighbours wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.
And what if said 'criminal' is not a criminal at all, but someone with a mental health issue? Or a local child with poor boundary issues. What if they are a dementia sufferer. I've had three breakins in houses I have been living in, during my life one was a robbery, the other two a neighbour suffering from dementia.

I'm sure most people look at who and what they're shooting before pulling the trigger, not always, I mean shooting a loved one that they thought was an intruder is a far too common story, but I'd hope most folks look before they shoot.

Shadow Lodge

At the same time, lets assume it is a guy with dementia. Am I supposed to let him kill me or my family just because he has a disease that makes him do crazy s+&%?

Sovereign Court

Andrew R wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable.
Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!
Hardly the same. They're legally appointed protectors who have someone to account to. Also, training and (usually) a legitimate desire to help. They're not perfect, but not in the same category as a burglar.
notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?

I think you missed the point of my statement, Tiny Coffee Golem said "If you're holding innocent people at gunpoint for any reason you've already made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable." to which I added "Or you're in the military or in law enforcement!" because I felt that there could be legitimate reasons for holding innocent people at gun point other then poor life decisions or insanity. You want to disagree with that, and by default call any military and law enforcement agent that have ever had to point a gun at an innocent person someone that "made bad decisions and most likely not mentally stable" go right ahead. Me personally? I respect our soldiers and law enforcement. As with any group there are a few bad eggs but I think most of them are decent people. YMMV.


Andrew R wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?

That you have difficulty with reading comprehension?

At BEST, in this thread, you'll hear people reticent to condemn the intruder based on the level of details released. Most of us, including myself since I suppose I wasn't clear, think some person probably got what was coming to him.

That is not what i got from some here, and if you lack that sympathy good. You did however make a statement that seemed to be against police in general.

Sure did. F&+$ tha police!!!


Kthulhu wrote:
At the same time, lets assume it is a guy with dementia. Am I supposed to let him kill me or my family just because he has a disease that makes him do crazy s#!#?

No, of course not. But it is one more reason why you avoid the confrontation and don't shoot anyone if you can help it.

Dementia is more likely to mean some one is horribly confused and broke into the house thinking it was theirs or something than that they're an axe murderer.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
At the same time, lets assume it is a guy with dementia. Am I supposed to let him kill me or my family just because he has a disease that makes him do crazy s#!#?

No, of course not. But it is one more reason why you avoid the confrontation and don't shoot anyone if you can help it.

Dementia is more likely to mean some one is horribly confused and broke into the house thinking it was theirs or something than that they're an axe murderer.

Maybe they were originally a lumber jack and has mistaken your friends and family as trees?

/joking

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
At the same time, lets assume it is a guy with dementia. Am I supposed to let him kill me or my family just because he has a disease that makes him do crazy s#!#?

No, of course not. But it is one more reason why you avoid the confrontation and don't shoot anyone if you can help it.

Dementia is more likely to mean some one is horribly confused and broke into the house thinking it was theirs or something than that they're an axe murderer.

Besides the "what if's", your missing the point. Is the mother protecting her kids suppossed to just assume that anyone entering her house has demintia, or any other number of ailments? No. Their job is to protect their kids and their selves. That doesn't change just because the person might have an issue affecting their LoC. I've worked with people with dementia, and they can be very freaky individuals at times. They do things completely out of no where, they forget what to most people is very common sense, and they simply do not remember it at all. I've seen people, for no reason (besides dementia or similar thing) hurl themselves at people and try to bite and claw them, (fully intending to maul them), and moments later not understand what the issue is. I've also seen people (again with dementia) just absolutely hate an individual they have never met, because they remind them of (or sometimes they believe the person to be) someone that they knew but can't remember any more.

The point is that just because the intruder might not know what they are doing doesn't mean they are any less of a threat, or somehow less capable of doing some sort of violence/rape/murder/etc. . .

The Exchange

meatrace wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
notice that many sympathise with the crook and attack the police? what does this really say here?

That you have difficulty with reading comprehension?

At BEST, in this thread, you'll hear people reticent to condemn the intruder based on the level of details released. Most of us, including myself since I suppose I wasn't clear, think some person probably got what was coming to him.

That is not what i got from some here, and if you lack that sympathy good. You did however make a statement that seemed to be against police in general.
Sure did. F@+$ tha police!!!

A few are bad but the VAST majority are men risking their safety and peace of mind so you can keep yours


Andrew R wrote:
Getting a little defensive about your defending the criminal now?

Absolutely.

So defensive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
At the same time, lets assume it is a guy with dementia. Am I supposed to let him kill me or my family just because he has a disease that makes him do crazy s#!#?

No, of course not. But it is one more reason why you avoid the confrontation and don't shoot anyone if you can help it.

Dementia is more likely to mean some one is horribly confused and broke into the house thinking it was theirs or something than that they're an axe murderer.

Besides the "what if's", your missing the point. Is the mother protecting her kids suppossed to just assume that anyone entering her house has demintia, or any other number of ailments? No. Their job is to protect their kids and their selves. That doesn't change just because the person might have an issue affecting their LoC. I've worked with people with dementia, and they can be very freaky individuals at times. They do things completely out of no where, they forget what to most people is very common sense, and they simply do not remember it at all. I've seen people, for no reason (besides dementia or similar thing) hurl themselves at people and try to bite and claw them, (fully intending to maul them), and moments later not understand what the issue is. I've also seen people (again with dementia) just absolutely hate an individual they have never met, because they remind them of (or sometimes they believe the person to be) someone that they knew but can't remember any more.

The point is that just because the intruder might not know what they are doing doesn't mean they are any less of a threat, or somehow less capable of doing some sort of violence/rape/murder/etc. . .

Which is why I said "No, of course not. But it is one more reason why you avoid the confrontation and don't shoot anyone if you can help it."

You're not supposed to let them kill your family. I didn't say that. I've never said that. I've said many times in this thread that I support what she did. She did a good job under scary circumstances. She tried to avoid the confrontation by hiding and only resorted to violence when that didn't work.
Trying to get out, as ZN suggested, might have been better and it might not have been. I'm not going to second guess that.

I will question those who talk about those who boast that they wouldn't run or hide, but would go down to confront the intruder and kill him, maybe giving him the chance to run first. Not only are they more likely to wind up hurt or killed themselves, but they're also more likely to hurt or kill someone who didn't really deserve it.
Again: Avoid the confrontation if you can. Not surrender. Not let yourself be killed. Avoid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I will question those who talk about those who boast that they wouldn't run or hide, but would go down to confront the intruder and kill him, maybe giving him the chance to run first. Not only are they more likely to wind up hurt or killed themselves, but they're also more likely to hurt or kill someone who didn't really deserve it.

This is the worst kind of machismo, and seems to be shared by a lot of gun enthusiasts. They believe themselves singularly equipped to deal with violent confrontation, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I will question those who talk about those who boast that they wouldn't run or hide, but would go down to confront the intruder and kill him, maybe giving him the chance to run first. Not only are they more likely to wind up hurt or killed themselves, but they're also more likely to hurt or kill someone who didn't really deserve it.
Scott Betts wrote:
This is the worst kind of machismo, and seems to be shared by a lot of gun enthusiasts. They believe themselves singularly equipped to deal with violent confrontation, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I keep out of these firearms-related discussions as a matter of course, but I'll opine on this one:

You are 100% correct. As a Soldier, under the right conditions and with the right equipment, and the right intelligence, I am singularly equipped to deal with violent confrontation. Nonetheless, as a multiple-deployment vet, trust me when I tell you that frontal assaults rarely turn out that well. Stealth and surprise are always the best options in a CQC setting (like a dark house at 0230).

You have a responsibility to protect yourself and those who count on you (like your family), and sometimes that means knowing when to hide and wait. If you're not intimately familiar with your home in the pitch of night, when you're barely awake, and scared, and intimately familiar with your equipment, you stand a better chance of survival by simply hiding until the intruder goes away or the situation develops to make your active interference the best option.

Sometimes, the intruder(s) remove the wait-it-out option, and you are required to remove the intruder(s). If a P226 is your weapon-at-hand, and you can remove the threat with one shot, that's what you do. If it takes the entire magazine, that's what you do. If the simple presence of the weapon is enough, great. We can investigate the incident later, but the guy (or gal) on the ground (in their home) is the decision-maker and no manner of after-action review (Monday-Morning QB) enables us to fully understand the situation as they experienced it.


Scott Betts wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
mordion wrote:
Nope, I understand and respect the reasons you'd like to ban them, but the first half of the sentence is a bad argument.
I'm not using it as a reason to ban anything. I'm saying that there are reasons for banning such weapons that do exist. Normally, the reasons in favor of banning the weapons would have to be weighed against the reasons not to ban them. However, since there are no real reasons not to ban them, no weighing needs to take place. There are legitimate reasons for banning them, and no legitimate reasons not to that might provide a counterargument to banning them.
I think this is a bit dismissive of other people's opinions. Who decides what's legitimate and what's not?

The state. All the time.

Do you believe otherwise?

You made the statement that there was no legitimate reason to own one. You didn't say that the state didn't say there was no legitimate reason to own one. Those are very different statements. As of right now, since the state has not said that you cannot own an assault rifle, then the only one making claims that there are no legitimate reasons to not own one is you. The state has made no such claim.

Here are some legitimate reasons to own:

1) I'm trained in the use of several different weapons, some of which are assault weapons (I was in the Army). If I had to make a choice between using a weapon I could hit 40/40 targets with and one that I wasn't as familiar with, I would take the one I am an expert with.

2) Target shooting is a perfectly legitimate reason to have any time of firearm.

3) Protecting large properties along boarder areas where there is heavy gun and drug trafficking is perfectly legitimate as well. If you don't live in an area where you have to deal with a cartel, you probably would never have to think about something like this.

4) It's Tuesday. As good a reason as any other.

I'm actually someone who would like to see better gun laws (not necessarily more, but better). I don't assume that my lack of desire or need to use a firearm means that others do not have that desire or need to use them. I have had the opportunity to train heavily with them and to train others as well. I know what they are capable of and who I would not want to see handle a weapon of any kind. But so long as they aren't harming others, then there is little that we can do about it.

For anyone else who wants to claim that the woman could have or should have done something differently, since you weren't there, you have no idea what she could have or should have done differently. You don't have a layout of her home. You don't know the condition of her or her kids. You don't have any useful information at all. Maybe she was unable to get the kids out quietly enough. Maybe the only way she felt she could go was blocked. Maybe she felt that it was her home and that this moron needed to find out what it's like to threaten a woman who is protecting her children. I don't think the kids will be scarred for life. If they need counselling, there is counselling available.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I will question those who talk about those who boast that they wouldn't run or hide, but would go down to confront the intruder and kill him, maybe giving him the chance to run first. Not only are they more likely to wind up hurt or killed themselves, but they're also more likely to hurt or kill someone who didn't really deserve it.
This is the worst kind of machismo, and seems to be shared by a lot of gun enthusiasts. They believe themselves singularly equipped to deal with violent confrontation, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It should be noted that most of these situations are specifically NOT the machismo rambo situation. Like in this case, the woman tried to avoid the confrontation, she didn't go looking for it, and only used her weapon when she was face to face with the perpetrator.

Even in the earlier story by a poster about someone using their concealed handgun, the person didn't immediately pull the weapon out and try to have an armed conflict and would have apparently been acceptable to just being mugged for their money. Only when the perpetrator attacked them, did they respond in kind.

I think what we are seeing is that lawful people, despite the talk being made, are rarely the aggressor in these situations, looking for an opportunity to take a life with their weapon. And I think most of the people "talking big" here, if faced with the situation would also try to avoid the situation if possible.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
You made the statement that there was no legitimate reason to own one. You didn't say that the state didn't say there was no legitimate reason to own one. Those are very different statements. As of right now, since the state has not said that you cannot own an assault rifle, then the only one making claims that there are no legitimate reasons to not own one is you. The state has made no such claim.

Who do you think the state is, exactly? We're not ruled by Louis XIV. The state has previously ruled that assault weapons could not be owned by civilians, so it clearly found a compelling reason at some point. That ruling expired and it looks like it may be renewed or reworked, because that's how a system of laws works.

Quote:

Here are some legitimate reasons to own:

1) I'm trained in the use of several different weapons, some of which are assault weapons (I was in the Army). If I had to make a choice between using a weapon I could hit 40/40 targets with and one that I wasn't as familiar with, I would take the one I am an expert with.

You were also trained with side arms, including your service pistol. You have other options.

Quote:
2) Target shooting is a perfectly legitimate reason to have any time of firearm.

If someone told you they want to own tactical nuclear weapons because they enjoy lobbing them at 100-meter-wide targets on their massive Wyoming estate, would you consider that use "perfectly legitimate"? Would you support their effort to acquire a personal nuclear arsenal?

Quote:
3) Protecting large properties along boarder areas where there is heavy gun and drug trafficking is perfectly legitimate as well. If you don't live in an area where you have to deal with a cartel, you probably would never have to think about something like this.

If you are living in a place where the use of a semi-automatic rifle is necessary because of regular, substantial threat to life and limb, you should probably move. I don't have tremendous sympathy for you if you choose to live in an area that pits you against a drug cartel's operation.

Quote:
I'm actually someone who would like to see better gun laws (not necessarily more, but better). I don't assume that my lack of desire or need to use a firearm means that others do not have that desire or need to use them.

Do you not assume that about nuclear weapons as well? If not, why not?

Quote:
I have had the opportunity to train heavily with them and to train others as well. I know what they are capable of and who I would not want to see handle a weapon of any kind. But so long as they aren't harming others, then there is little that we can do about it.

There is plenty we can do about it, and no one ever harms anyone - until they do.


pres man wrote:
It should be noted that most of these situations are specifically NOT the machismo rambo situation

That's the point. Reality is rarely - if ever - made up of the stone-cold killer mentality fantasies that a lot of gun enthusiasts seem to believe themselves possessed of.

Quote:
I think what we are seeing is that lawful people, despite the talk being made, are rarely the aggressor in these situations, looking for an opportunity to take a life with their weapon. And I think most of the people "talking big" here, if faced with the situation would also try to avoid the situation if possible.

I hope so, but the evidence regarding the risks associated with simply possessing a firearm argues otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.
And what if said 'criminal' is not a criminal at all, but someone with a mental health issue? Or a local child with poor boundary issues. What if they are a dementia sufferer. I've had three breakins in houses I have been living in, during my life one was a robbery, the other two a neighbour suffering from dementia.
Then they need a more capable handler. What if you stand there thinking "what if" while the "maybe harmless" kills or rapes a child? Or is it ok to gamble with other peoples kids to you? You want to risk your safety and life have at it but do not dare try to force that russian roulette of "maybe" on others

First of all, what libertarians dystopia do you live in where A, a mistakes being made = some one needs a better 'handler'(the term is carer, elders are not animals thank you), and where it becomes okay to shoot an old person or someone with a mental illness because they have in a moment of confusion broken into your home.

Yes there is an attendant risk, however small to any intrusion, but that is precisely the reasons I have advocated removing your self and your family from the area to minimise that risk.

I don't have to stand there thinking 'what if' because i have taken simple precautions to ensure that we should not be put in that position.

Should a confrontation become unavoidable, their are more than two choices. It isn't just a case of shot the guy, or watch children get raped.

I have lots of other options; fleeing, physicial restraint, compressed air horn at close range, improvised weapons, personal violence and so on, none of which require(assuming I am at my grandfathers) I stop to spend two minutes to go to his office, recover the safe keys, open up, unchain the twelve gage, and load it. In that two minutes, we can all be out of the house and half way to our neighbours, with the added advantage of me not killing or injuring an individual who is almost certainly unarmed.


"The alleged burglar".
Yeah, he broke into the house and caused the family to hide in the crawlway because he was actually there to deliver flowers.
Of course that's why he was there. the family should be ashamed of themselves for imagining that the guy who's broken into their house and rummaging through their things is a burglar. [/sarcasm]

This looks to me like a case of a responsible gun owner who's using their family's personal defense weapon for its intended purpose: to defend their family. Shooting the guy 6 times, 5 of which were in the face? well, if the man managed to flee afterwards then evidently it was neither overkill nor being 'trigger happy' (If the first shot had downed him and the rest had just been to make sure he was dead then I'd say it was trigger happy behavior.)

What's the bet he tries to sue the mum for damages? Ok, now I am stereotyping the American justice system, and I should stop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FuelDrop wrote:

"The alleged burglar".

Yeah, he broke into the house and caused the family to hide in the crawlway because he was actually there to deliver flowers.
Of course that's why he was there. the family should be ashamed of themselves for imagining that the guy who's broken into their house and rummaging through their things is a burglar. [/sarcasm]

This looks to me like a case of a responsible gun owner who's using their family's personal defense weapon for its intended purpose: to defend their family. Shooting the guy 6 times, 5 of which were in the face? well, if the man managed to flee afterwards then evidently it was neither overkill nor being 'trigger happy' (If the first shot had downed him and the rest had just been to make sure he was dead then I'd say it was trigger happy behavior.)

What's the bet he tries to sue the mum for damages? Ok, now I am stereotyping the American justice system, and I should stop.

It is alleged that he was a burglar.

That remains the case until he has been tried by a court of his peers.

It is a simple concept, that we are all Innocent until proven guilty.

I have little doubt that he will be found guilty, but until he has the right to not be refered to as guilty of the crime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FuelDrop wrote:
"The alleged burglar".

Yes, alleged burglar.

Quote:
Yeah, he broke into the house and caused the family to hide in the crawlway because he was actually there to deliver flowers.

Those are the only two possibilities, huh? They were either a hardened criminal or there to deliver flowers?

Quote:
Of course that's why he was there.

That's probably why he was there. And that's about all you can say, given what little information you have.

Quote:
the family should be ashamed of themselves for imagining that the guy who's broken into their house and rummaging through their things is a burglar. [/sarcasm]

No one has said anything like that, so why are you acting like they have?

Quote:
This looks to me like a case of a responsible gun owner who's using their family's personal defense weapon for its intended purpose: to defend their family.

Yes, it does look like that.

Quote:
Shooting the guy 6 times, 5 of which were in the face? well, if the man managed to flee afterwards then evidently it was neither overkill nor being 'trigger happy' (If the first shot had downed him and the rest had just been to make sure he was dead then I'd say it was trigger happy behavior.)

That is not true. If the assailant had dropped/surrendered/fled after the first shot and made no attempt to restart the violent attack (if a violent attack was happening in the first place), firing additional shots at the assailant would absolutely be excessive. You are assuming that because the assailant was capable of making it out the door, all six shots were warranted. That is not a safe assumption.


Scott, buddy, I think it's time to calm down a bit. Take a step back. Relax. You've become a little too invested in this thread now.

Picking apart a comment and replying to each sentence individually like you've been doing is a classic hallmark of aggressive thread behavior.

You've already made your points and others have made theirs. It's pretty clear that neither you or the others are going to change your position so now is a good time to call it a draw.

Oh and everyone else: Stop feeding the trolls. (their fat enough as it is)


Ishmell wrote:
Scott, buddy, I think it's time to calm down a bit. Take a step back. Relax. You've become a little too invested in this thread now.

These topical discussions are relaxing. If you are under the impression that this gets my blood pressure up, or has me foaming at the mouth, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. This is just one of the ways I unwind - much like, I imagine, many others here. Perhaps you are reading my posts while imagining an aggressive tone? I make a concerted effort to avoid insult and personal attack (often in the face of just that), and prefer substance over rhetoric (if my apparent love affair with dredging up research didn't make that clear). I nearly always write posts in what I intend to be a calm and straightforward voice - with the occasional exception for when some serious sarcasm is called for. It may help to read my posts through that lens instead of whatever you currently use.

If you have a problem with the content of my posts, you are free to respond to that post and explain the issue. If you have a problem with the way in which I post and you feel I'm breaking the forum's rules, you should flag the offending post for moderation. If you are concerned for my personal well-being, that's very kind of you, but it's probably best left to PMs rather than being dropped into the middle of the thread.


Sweden is, as always, a forerunner in the justice department.

We have a VERY classic story about a case in the 80s, where a burglar stole a VCR from a house, only to slip on the path out to the street and fall, getting hurt in the process. The burglar reported this to the police, and the house's owner had to pay damages, because he hadn't cleared the path enough.

I have no doubt in my body that if a woman did the above in Sweden, she would be held for attempted murder and probably be sentenced to a few years in prison for it. This MIGHT end up with her going free if she appealed the sentence, but given the workings in previous cases, I doubt it.

Oh, and the newspapers here would never have agreed to remove the "trigger-happy" description.

All the above would apply no matter what kind of weapon she had used, given that guns are pretty heavily restricted in Sweden.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Sweden is, as always, a forerunner in the justice department.

We have a VERY classic story about a case in the 80s, where a burglar stole a VCR from a house, only to slip on the path out to the street and fall, getting hurt in the process. The burglar reported this to the police, and the house's owner had to pay damages, because he hadn't cleared the path enough.

I have no doubt in my body that if a woman did the above in Sweden, she would be held for attempted murder and probably be sentenced to a few years in prison for it. This MIGHT end up with her going free if she appealed the sentence, but given the workings in previous cases, I doubt it.

Oh, and the newspapers here would never have agreed to remove the "trigger-happy" description.

All the above would apply no matter what kind of weapon she had used, given that guns are pretty heavily restricted in Sweden.

My sister lives in Sweden (is a Swede, in fact), and contends it's the safest and happiest place in the world. I keep telling her she's mixing the place up with her western neighbors (my dad was from Wales via Norway). To hear her tell it, there is simply no need (or desire) for firearms amongst the general population.


zombie neighbors wrote:
It is alleged that he was a burglar.

Hmm.. convicted felon. In someone elses home. With a crowbar. Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and say the burglar, epistemic nihilism be damned.


My point is that yes, there are few gun deaths, but our legal system has been and is seven kinds of parody. Defending yourself generally means you will have severe trouble with the law... and the media will be out for your blood. Add to this that the police spend their time filling out papers, trying to catch DUIs outside universities during the day to minimize the paperwork, and generally have no time dealing with annoyances like home invasions... yeah, there is a price we pay.

Liberty's Edge

Sissyl wrote:
My point is that yes, there are few gun deaths, but our legal system has been and is seven kinds of parody. Defending yourself generally means you will have severe trouble with the law... and the media will be out for your blood. Add to this that the police spend their time filling out papers, trying to catch DUIs outside universities during the day to minimize the paperwork, and generally have no time dealing with annoyances like home invasions... yeah, there is a price we pay.

Snutar...ganska roligt gäng.

The Exchange

Zombieneighbours wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Better for me to kill an non-violent criminal than for a violent criminal to kill me and my family.
And what if said 'criminal' is not a criminal at all, but someone with a mental health issue? Or a local child with poor boundary issues. What if they are a dementia sufferer. I've had three breakins in houses I have been living in, during my life one was a robbery, the other two a neighbour suffering from dementia.
Then they need a more capable handler. What if you stand there thinking "what if" while the "maybe harmless" kills or rapes a child? Or is it ok to gamble with other peoples kids to you? You want to risk your safety and life have at it but do not dare try to force that russian roulette of "maybe" on others

First of all, what libertarians dystopia do you live in where A, a mistakes being made = some one needs a better 'handler'(the term is carer, elders are not animals thank you), and where it becomes okay to shoot an old person or someone with a mental illness because they have in a moment of confusion broken into your home.

Yes there is an attendant risk, however small to any intrusion, but that is precisely the reasons I have advocated removing your self and your family from the area to minimise that risk.

I don't have to stand there thinking 'what if' because i have taken simple precautions to ensure that we should not be put in that position.

Should a confrontation become unavoidable, their are more than two choices. It isn't just a case of shot the guy, or watch children get raped.

I have lots of other options; fleeing, physicial restraint, compressed air horn at close range, improvised weapons, personal violence and so on, none of which require(assuming I am at my grandfathers) I stop to spend two minutes to go to his office, recover the safe keys, open up, unchain the twelve gage, and load it. In that two minutes, we can all be out of the house and half way to our neighbours, with the...

A reality where if someone is too crazy or whacked out on some substance they need a responsable adult to be watching them closer, that is not the innocent home owner's fault.

So every house should have an escape from every room just in case? and better all be in physical shape to flee or deserve what they get?

Every precaution for every situation? arrogant or foolish, at risk possibly more so for thinking such

Flee, fisticuffs or random object. most of which means you will almost certainly be hurt. Not all are physically capable of winning any physical fight.

My revolver and one longarm sit loaded and ready, screw waiting and hoping. Home defense weapons should not be locked away so they cannot be used

The Exchange

Sissyl wrote:
My point is that yes, there are few gun deaths, but our legal system has been and is seven kinds of parody. Defending yourself generally means you will have severe trouble with the law... and the media will be out for your blood. Add to this that the police spend their time filling out papers, trying to catch DUIs outside universities during the day to minimize the paperwork, and generally have no time dealing with annoyances like home invasions... yeah, there is a price we pay.

Yeah, a gun free heaven for safe criminals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

For accuracy? Come on. You just want to find some flaw in the conclusion because you don't like it.

That's not how suicides work. Firearms are overwhelmingly preferred by male suicide victims - in the absence of firearms, they will resort to other methods that are nearly as effective.

Female suicide victims overwhelmingly choose poisoning/overdose or self-mutilation (e.g. wrist-cutting) when attempting suicide, and are successful far less often. They tend not to resort to firearms.

Owning a firearm makes you much more likely to try, and more likely to succeed.

Sorry, but correlation does not imply causation.

The fact that firearms are preferred by male suidcide victims, does not mean that firearms owners are more likely to attempt suicide. Here's an equivalent (and just as ridiculous) statement for you: People who devlop diabetes overwhelmingly report having eaten cookies. Therefore, eating cookies makes you much more likely to get diabetes.

Edit: A better restatement of the arguement: All shark attacks occur in the ocean, therefore, all people swimming in the ocean will be attacked by sharks. OR Nearly all drownings occur in two or more inches of water, therefore, all people in water deeper than two inches will drown.

If I remember correctly from my college psychology class, male suicides overwhelmingly tend to be more "successful" than female suicides regardless of method. The thought (at the time) was that males tend to not want to "cry for help" with a suicide and rather just want to really end it. Thus, they plan and choose methods that are more effective. The converse (that most female suicides were thought to be a cry for help) is irrelevant to the current discussion.

-Aaron


Imply does not mean the same thing to statistions as the rest of us.

The more standard version of "correlation does not imply causation" is "correlation does not equal causation."

This is because the technical meaning of implies is in statisics is "to be a sufficient circumstance." By that definition, corrilation does not imply causation.

However, Correlation is still one of the best ways to search for causation. In lay terms, correlation does exactly 'imply' causation. imply meaning strongly suggest. It isn't 100%, but it is usually a great place to start looking.

And most studies that are something other than an initial investigation correct for this, using statisically and experimental tools that allow you to tease out causality.

Just because it is a corralative study is not sufficiant reason to ignore its findings.


Andrew R wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
My point is that yes, there are few gun deaths, but our legal system has been and is seven kinds of parody. Defending yourself generally means you will have severe trouble with the law... and the media will be out for your blood. Add to this that the police spend their time filling out papers, trying to catch DUIs outside universities during the day to minimize the paperwork, and generally have no time dealing with annoyances like home invasions... yeah, there is a price we pay.
Yeah, a gun free heaven for safe criminals.

with its more than four times lower murder rate than the u.s.a.

i mean, i know it is not quite japan with its 0.4 murders/100000 pop, but still swedens crime rates rank so vastly better than the USAs that I can't help but laugh a little at such a statement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ZOmbie neighbors wrote:
Just because it is a corralative study is not sufficiant reason to ignore its findings.

We're not ignoring its findings: we're ignoring the ad hoc meaning you've tacked onto it in support of your goal. The study says gun ownership is (somehow) linked to getting shot. You've decided that means that the gun ownership is causing people to engage in behavior that gets them shot, rather than the rather obvious link that if you live in a dangerous area you're more likely to be armed.

Its like saying that most people killed in the military were carrying guns, so to make them safer we should have them leave the guns in the barracks. (a file clerk is less likely to be armed and more likely to live through the war)

Also, considering that most gun related deaths are drug related, its really no surprise that both parties involved are frequently armed. Occupational hazard.


Guy Humual wrote:
There's a reason suicide rates are higher among soldiers and police officers.

Well compare a soldier to people in the same age gender group and they have a LOWER Suicide rate then civilians.

Young men tend to have a higher suicided rate then other age/gender groups. Most soldiers are young men. When data is normalized to give an apples to apples comparison, despite the press that soldier suicides get, it is below civilian suicide rate.


Andrew R wrote:
Yeah, a gun free heaven for safe criminals.

Definitely. I hear that in Sweden, people break into your house and randomly murder you all the time.

Shadow Lodge

RE: Always having an escape plan - It's just plan not always possible. My apartment, for example, is pretty smallish. There's only one door out, which leads down a narrow stairway to the ground entrance door. There are four windows, two in the room that the entry door opens into, and one each in two bedrooms. While I do also have an attic, it's entry is located close enough to the door to my apartment that it isn't really viable, aside from the fact that I have to grab a chair open the attic entry. If someone broke into my apartment while I was hope, that it's pretty damned inevitable that I WILL be confronting them in some manner. Unless I was already in the attic or was already jumping out the window. Neither of which happens with any degree of frequency.

Maybe they will see me and run off. That's the best case scenario. And it that's how it went down, I damn sure wouldn't chase after him. But you can't base your planning for something like that around a best-case scenario...you have to base it off a WORST-case scenario. To do otherwise is foolish and naive. You have to assume that an intruder into your home, upon finding you, is going to react aggresively; because if you don't assume that, then when it does happen you are completely unprepared, and you will get hurt (or worse).

And if a intruder does come into my home and act agressively towards me, then I'm not going to do a background check on him to see if he suffers from dementia or has some other "excuse" for his behavior. I'm going to protect myself, and any friends and family that happen to be around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
And if a intruder does come into my home and act agressively towards me, then I'm not going to do a background check on him to see if he suffers from dementia or has some other "excuse" for his behavior. I'm going to protect myself, and any friends and family that happen to be around.

It must be terrible stressful to never be able to feel safe, even in your own home. You have my sympathies.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ironically, the anti-gun posters in this thread keeping this discussion going have made me think about my own situation, and am now seriously considering purchasing a handgun for my own home protection (despite my stance, I've never actually had my own personal firearm). So, ZombieNeighbours, I dedicate my upcoming purchase of a Beretta 92A1 to you!

Shadow Lodge

Slaunyeh wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
And if a intruder does come into my home and act agressively towards me, then I'm not going to do a background check on him to see if he suffers from dementia or has some other "excuse" for his behavior. I'm going to protect myself, and any friends and family that happen to be around.
It must be terrible stressful to never be able to feel safe, even in your own home. You have my sympathies.

I do feel safe. However, I'm also a member of the military, and if there's one thing it's taught me, it's to always hope for the best-case scenario while at the same time preparing for the worse-case scenario.


Kthulhu wrote:
However, I'm also a member of the military, and if there's one thing it's taught me, it's to always hope for the best-case scenario while at the same time preparing for the worse-case scenario.

I thought that's what you learned from software development. :)

Obviously, if you have to go round with an "escape plan", or need to keep a gun handy so that you can "save your family when a burglar comes to randomly murder you all" you're not really feeling safe. Safe would be not having to worry about your neighbour being an axe murderer at all.

251 to 300 of 836 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards