|
I just read this news story and had to post it here. Yes Starcraft multitasking is hard when your opponent is out to kill you, but it's just a game. What if someone really wants to kill you?
A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.
"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.
"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.
When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.
"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.
Stewart soon turned himself in to police.
McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.
"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."
|
God I don't think i would have been able to remain as calm as she was.
|
|
|
Damn, died on Christmas day, how sad.
|
What a bad ass mom. Sometimes you gotta pull that 12 gauge out, feed the baby and kill some bad guys. STANDARD new years
|
Pretty gosu. Shes probably watched a lot of law and order.
|
She was 21 Minutes on the Phone?
How long does it take for the police to arrive? O_o
|
On January 05 2012 03:30 cutler wrote:
She was 21 Minutes on the Phone?
How long does it take for the police to arrive? O_o
long enough to ready yourself with arms in case this happens i guess
seriously, how do you remain so calm? maybe because she lost her husband and can't dread to see another leave her world. can't underestimate the power of emotions
|
The intruder sounded pretty incompetent anyway. Lets take 20+ minutes to break into a house in broad daylight!
Glad the mom and child are okay, I doubt the child would have been harmed though just the gifts and valuables stolen.
|
United States4991 Posts
Why was this guy so intent on killing her or her kid? Seems a really stupid thing for him to do.
|
"There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."
I don't think I've ever heard a saying that was more true.
|
Sad and amazing at the same time. She would be a bad ass movie character!
|
Guys don't normally break into the houses of recent widows wielding hunting knives. I'm guessing the father owed some money to the wrong people or was involved in drugs somehow.
Either way self defense is self defense.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
Im even surprised that she could handle a 12 guage in the first place.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 04:10 amazingxkcd wrote:
Im even surprised that she could handle a 12 guage in the first place.
It's in Oklahoma. She's probably known how to use a gun her whole life.
|
I believe it was morally justified due to the possibility of the intruders raping and killing her, which would have made her baby an orphan and ruined his or her life.
|
On January 05 2012 04:10 amazingxkcd wrote:
Im even surprised that she could handle a 12 guage in the first place.
Do note: she is an "Oklahoma mother". They're raised to shot from birth out there, and some subjects have been known to fight off more than one man when they're children are threatened.
In all seriousness though, that is really sad that her husband just died on Christmas day and really cool that she was able to remain so calm under the circumstances. I'd marry her XD
Edit: Myles beat me to it...
|
Husband dies on christmas day, 2 guys try to break into her house and she kills one of them on new years, what a week!
|
What a brave woman. I'm not going to judge whether her actions were right or wrong, but I applaud her crisis management abilities.
|
As the comments say: gun in your hand is better than the police on the phone.
|
Yup, no point waiting. Way to be.
|
Good job @ the moM and the police
|
She should start playing StarCraft...
|
The total police response time is pretty damn weird. Is it normal for them to take that long?
Besides that, pro mom. <3
|
You don't fuck with a woman's kids.
It's just like nature - get between a moose/bear and its babies and you are in for trouble.
|
Good story, pretty sure I wouldn't have lasted having a baby at 18 let alone being attacked with a child to look after at the same time. I wish this said WHY these guys were trying to get in her house. Were they there to steal or to specifically attack her?
|
Intense. I wonder what her peak APM was.
In all seriousness, she handled herself very well.
|
Wow pretty balsy but i only got a question nothing happend to the baby right? id imagne that blast shot would not be good for its ears but then again good for her for actually having the guts to protect her baby that much.
|
"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her.
Really? The dispatcher's purpose is to assist the caller, right? But what a shitty help is that? She asks if its ok to kill the intruder if he comes into the house. The dispatcher has to give a clear answer in my opinion.
Otherwise it's a failure to render assistence. If the woman came to the conclusion that she wasn't allowed to shoot him, because the dispatcher did not help her, she would have died.
|
Bizarre. In any other civilized country she would go to jail for this and the child would grow up without parents.
I don't understand why the baby is part of the story. Is it common in the US for babies to be stolen?
I don't see why she is a hero. She is a double victim if you ask me. The burglars and the system that promotes killing for no good reason just because it is legal.
I have seen this debate before and I find it hard to believe so many immoral people exist that would condone outright killing of unarmed people.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 06:28 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. Really? The dispatcher's purpose is to assist the caller, right? But what a shitty help is that? She asks if its ok to kill the intruder if he comes into the house. The dispatcher has to give a clear answer in my opinion. Otherwise it's a failure to render assistence. If the woman came to the conclusion that she wasn't allowed to shoot him, because the dispatcher did not help her, she would have died.
The decision to use force is a subjective call that the dispatcher can't really make since they're not there and can't understand all the details of the situation. She said the right thing imo - if you feel threatened for yourself or your baby, defend yourself.
|
On January 05 2012 06:28 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. Really? The dispatcher's purpose is to assist the caller, right? But what a shitty help is that? She asks if its ok to kill the intruder if he comes into the house. The dispatcher has to give a clear answer in my opinion. Otherwise it's a failure to render assistence. If the woman came to the conclusion that she wasn't allowed to shoot him, because the dispatcher did not help her, she would have died.
Uh, as far as I can tell that's exactly the right thing for the dispatcher to say. "Do what you have to do to protect your baby." If you have to shoot someone to protect your baby, do it. "Do what you have to do" is perfectly clear, it's not as though she said "I can't tell you that you can do that, just protect yourself."
What you're suggesting is that the dispatcher basically tell somebody over the phone "Yes, shoot them." That doesn't fly.
Edit:
On January 05 2012 06:35 Hekisui wrote:
Bizarre. In any other civilized country she would go to jail for this and the child would grow up without parents.
I don't understand why the baby is part of the story. Is it common in the US for babies to be stolen?
I don't see why she is a hero. She is a double victim if you ask me. The burglars and the system that promotes killing for no good reason just because it is legal.
I have seen this debate before and I find it hard to believe so many immoral people exist that would condone outright killing of unarmed people.
They were armed. They broke into her house brandishing a big ass hunting knife. How else are you supposed to defend yourself than with force?
|
United States7639 Posts
On January 05 2012 06:35 Hekisui wrote:
Bizarre. In any other civilized country she would go to jail for this and the child would grow up without parents.
I don't understand why the baby is part of the story. Is it common in the US for babies to be stolen?
I don't see why she is a hero. She is a double victim if you ask me. The burglars and the system that promotes killing for no good reason just because it is legal.
I have seen this debate before and I find it hard to believe so many immoral people exist that would condone outright killing of unarmed people.
Did you even fucking read the article? The guy was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. You may be trusting of men who break into your house brandishing knives, but I sure as hell would not be, nor would anyone with half a brain.
|
Xiron, you can't be serious....
The dispatcher is a messenger. There's escalations to what they can say, but a black and white clear answer? Co mon, get real. "For the love of god, shoot him dead now!" or "Whatever you do, don't shoot him!"
Either way you spin it, both sentences will end up having the dispatcher pointing fingers at him/her. They're not dear abby, or Dr. Phil, or any advice giver. The answer given was very appropriate for such an emergency situation.
And please save the "Otherwise it's a failure to render assistence." Like you even know what you're talking about.
Please think about your posts in the future.
|
So city folks do not understand how rural, rural can be. The fact of the matter is in many areas it can take police more than 20 minutes to respond to 911 calls which is why it is important for folks to be able to defend themselves.
I am surprised she did not just call a neighbor. If this sort of thing happened in my neighborhood you would have a half dozen men with guns ready within a few minutes (depending on time of day and who is home etc.)
|
On January 05 2012 03:55 Necosarius wrote:
Sad and amazing at the same time. She would be a bad ass movie character!
Sarah Connor!
On January 05 2012 06:28 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. Really? The dispatcher's purpose is to assist the caller, right? But what a shitty help is that? She asks if its ok to kill the intruder if he comes into the house. The dispatcher has to give a clear answer in my opinion. Otherwise it's a failure to render assistence. If the woman came to the conclusion that she wasn't allowed to shoot him, because the dispatcher did not help her, she would have died.
I felt that the dispatcher's response was well-versed. She gave clear advice to that woman without impliciting herself in anything.
|
Good thing she isn't one of those "gun control" freaks (like that Hekisui retard above) or she and her baby would be dead or worse. The fact is that when you need the police chances are they are more than 5 minutes away. A hell of a lot can happen in 5 minutes so it is great to see this brave young woman resist the ridiculous amount of gun control propaganda and defend herself and her child.
|
On January 05 2012 06:35 Hekisui wrote:
Bizarre. In any other civilized country she would go to jail for this and the child would grow up without parents.
I don't understand why the baby is part of the story. Is it common in the US for babies to be stolen?
I don't see why she is a hero. She is a double victim if you ask me. The burglars and the system that promotes killing for no good reason just because it is legal.
I have seen this debate before and I find it hard to believe so many immoral people exist that would condone outright killing of unarmed people.
Did you read it? What the hell would you do if someone broke into your house and attacked you with a 12 inch hunting knife? (Ie - they weren't unarmed) Sit there and go, well im so fucking civilized, just stab me. It would be morally wrong for me to protect myself even tho i have a gun in my pocket.
.... You cant be serious.... I hope you never are in your home when someone breaks in with a deadly weapon because clearly you wouldn't do anything to stop yourself from getting killed. gl hf gg
And speaking of other civilized country's, didnt the UK just recently say its okay to kill someone in your home with a knife if they are intruding?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=238778
--; what she did was totally justified and she seemed to be a premeditated target. You dont go breaking into other peoples homes and not expect to get punished to the fullest extent.
|
On January 05 2012 06:35 Hekisui wrote:
Bizarre. In any other civilized country she would go to jail for this and the child would grow up without parents.
I don't understand why the baby is part of the story. Is it common in the US for babies to be stolen?
I don't see why she is a hero. She is a double victim if you ask me. The burglars and the system that promotes killing for no good reason just because it is legal.
I have seen this debate before and I find it hard to believe so many immoral people exist that would condone outright killing of unarmed people.
FREEZE! OR I'LL... sue you?
If that's what being civilized means, I don't want to be civilized.
|
Should have breastfed the baby, imo.
|
Good for her. What a frightening experience =/
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37043 Posts
Uhhh.... wow..... what a story.
What a brave mother.
What jackasses trying to break in....
|
Wow was surprised to see only 1 person (who has no idea what he's talking about obviously) be against this.
That is crazy crisis management and in my eyes she made the right decision to just shoot him out right. I wouldn't wait and ask questions because for all that could have happened both could have charged her immediately. Right decision in my eyes and man sucks to be her though, husband dies of cancer on christmas day then 2 guys try to break in. Feel really bad for you 
|
On January 05 2012 06:28 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. Really? The dispatcher's purpose is to assist the caller, right? But what a shitty help is that? She asks if its ok to kill the intruder if he comes into the house. The dispatcher has to give a clear answer in my opinion. Otherwise it's a failure to render assistence. If the woman came to the conclusion that she wasn't allowed to shoot him, because the dispatcher did not help her, she would have died.
Think of it this way, the dispatcher has to be ambiguous. (or I presume so assuming the following scenarios happen) recieving information from (usually) a panicked person creates a very hard picture to form. The only time you'd give a black and white answer is if you damn right for sure known the circumstances and thats counter to the idea of a phone dispatcher
Lets say she said they were trying to get in the house and she asks if she can shoot them. The dispatcher says yes it's in your right.
Turns out the house is the boyfriends and she's locked herself in because she found out he was cheating on her.
Who's fucked now? (aside from the now dead boyfriend)
|
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is.
|
On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is.
Well I can only imagine what sad fate awaits you if someone ever breaks into your house with a 12 inch hunters knife. Good luck for your sake hope it never happens to you as you clearly have no regard to your own life and the criminal is innocent and should not be killed even if carrying a huge knife that could easily kill you which who knows what his motives were.
Maybe they were going to rape her? Think she should just let that happen? Then let them kill her as well? Sounds smart to me.
|
On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is.
Give me your initial first reaction to someone trying to break into your house brandishing a 12 inch knife. Acceptance of fate? Or do you not try to prolong your life?
|
On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is.
Dude, If somebody was trying to break in your door with a huge ass hunting knife and trying to kill you and your son, and the only way to live would be to shoot him, wouldn't you shoot him? ._____.
|
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it.
User was banned for this post.
|
On January 05 2012 07:53 Makaveli1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is. Dude, If somebody was trying to break in your door with a huge ass hunting knife and trying to kill you and your son, and the only way to live would be to shoot him, wouldn't you shoot him? ._____.
I'm fine with the mother's decision, but to play a counter point, she could disable them instead of kill them.
|
On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it.
Answer my question.
They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another.
They are animals, they deserve to be put down.
To the guy above, shoot to kill every time. I shoot him in the leg, he's still got arms to throw his knife at my child, I shoot his arm he's got another any other tactical spot I'm probably not a good enough sharp shooter to hit. If you mean disable him through martial arts, I'll pass and stick to the gun.
|
On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it.
Your post just showed you have no idea what we are talking about and are ignoring questions. Way to go I am pretty sure you are just trying to start an argument here just to see responses. If not that you are completely ignorant to the real world and think nothing bad ever happens to people which is just delusional.
|
On January 05 2012 07:23 qqK wrote:
Should have breastfed the baby, imo.
probly not, too much adrenaline in the milk bro
|
On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it.
I can't even tell if this guy is serious. Hopefully no one ever needs his protection in a life and death scenario.
|
Why all the personal attacks?
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
Someone was killed rather than saved btw.
|
I would have shot them the second I saw them with a 12 in knife trying to get into my home. I'm glad she did that. I don't own a gun, but in a situation like this I'm glad she had one. She did the proper thing. I would have been on a spree if someone threatened my life
|
This is one of those rare situations in which having a gun in your home is useful. It's a shame all the problems a gun culture causes take away all of that, and more =/
|
On January 05 2012 08:03 TerraTron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. I can't even tell if this guy is serious. Hopefully no one ever needs his protection in a life and death scenario.
After reading this I can safely say he's not serious. He's just trying to stir up an argument.
On January 05 2012 08:10 Hekisui wrote:
Why all the personal attacks?
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
Someone was killed rather than saved btw.
Yep simple troll.
|
On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down.
I disagree with this.
What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy.
Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong.
|
Why am I a troll? Sheesh.
She was never attacked. They didn't know she had a gun. She never fired a warning shot. The other guy wasn't shot and he didn't kill her. As the article reads, she killed him the first opportunity she got. In the Netherlands she would be found guilty for sure.
Same in UK.
You saying the lawmakers in those countries are trolling too? You choose to be wrong to be immoral. Sad.
People like Denzil proof my point and proof that I am not trolling. It is just people being brought up with bad morality. Not a disagreement over how much violence one can use in defense of property.
|
On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong.
You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action.
I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye
|
On January 05 2012 08:10 Hekisui wrote:
Why all the personal attacks?
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
Someone was killed rather than saved btw.
Knock on a door brandish a 12 inch knife bust in, purposely break into the room where the mother and the child was get shot.
man I agree it must be tough getting lost and doing that
|
On January 05 2012 06:35 Hekisui wrote:
Bizarre. In any other civilized country she would go to jail for this and the child would grow up without parents.
I don't understand why the baby is part of the story. Is it common in the US for babies to be stolen?
I don't see why she is a hero. She is a double victim if you ask me. The burglars and the system that promotes killing for no good reason just because it is legal.
I have seen this debate before and I find it hard to believe so many immoral people exist that would condone outright killing of unarmed people.
unarmed men that break into your locked house wielding TWELVE INCH HUNTING KNIVES
|
I hope I never meet you, Denzil. You might shoot me for 'being wrong'. You are a scary scary person.
|
On January 05 2012 08:16 Hekisui wrote:
Why am I a troll? Sheesh.
She was never attacked. They didn't know she had a gun. She never fired a warning shot. The other guy wasn't shot and he didn't kill her. As the article reads, she killed him the first opportunity she got. In the Netherlands she would be found guilty for sure.
Same in UK.
You saying the lawmakers in those countries are trolling too? You choose to be wrong to be immoral. Sad.
People like Denzil proof my point and proof that I am not trolling. It is just people being brought up with bad morality.
Uh, yeah, she hadn't been attacked, but you make it sound like there was no chance of her being attacked at all. She locks her door. The guy has a huge knife. He wants to get in bad enough to break down the door, or whatever he did to get in. Does it matter if they knew she had a gun? No, they're breaking into her freaking house, armed with a weapon. She has the right to defend herself. She has absolutely no idea what their intentions are, but you can make some pretty decent assumptions based on the fact that they are breaking into her house, armed.
|
On January 05 2012 08:20 Hekisui wrote:
I hope I never meet you, Denzil. You might shoot me for 'being wrong'. You are a scary scary person.
It's ok I'm glad you know your laws, in UK this has happened a few times and the intruder has always been in the wrong.
Not sure where you're from but I hope I never have to live in your household overnight.
|
On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye
In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you.
It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity.
|
You are wrong on UK law too. Denzil, you are an evil person for making all these personal insults. I just have to retaliate now. You shoot people and put them down like animals. What do I do that is so despicable? Why make all kinds of crazy assumptions about me? I don't know what I do when confronted with violence. But while I am not the bloodthirsty killer you hope to be, I can tell you I am no coward.
Don't confuse people with morality superior to you with people that are cowards.
Also, it seems she wanted to kill people more than the buglers did. Does that mean the family of the man shot are now free to take vengeance? I mean, according to you guys, she lost the right to live by killing.
This is not self defense but purely being taught it is a privilege to get to kill someone and that you should do it when the opportunity arises. Obviously she desperately wanted to kill. That's why she also poses for the media and why this is such a big media story. It is sickening.
|
Hekisui, there was a guy with a 12" knife breaking through her door with another guy behind him. It's absurd to suggest she shouldn't try to defend herself and her child, especially after discussing it with the 911 guys beforehand. It would be absurd to accuse her of anything.
|
On January 05 2012 08:24 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you. It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity.
Elaborate on where it doesn't make sense to you, is it the intent is not the deed? or am i looking at the wrong part?
Why are you making personal attacks on me using words such as bloodthirsty and aspiring to become a killer? Just because someone sees a different point from you is no reason to attempt to beat a dead horse on a thread where majority opinion is counter to your opinion
|
just stop feeding the troll
|
On January 05 2012 08:24 Hekisui wrote:
You are wrong on UK law too. Denzil, you are an evil person for making all these personal insults. I just have to retaliate now. You shoot people and put them down like animals. What do I do that is so despicable? Why make all kinds of crazy assumptions about me? I don't know what I do when confronted with violence. But while I am not the bloodthirsty killer you hope to be, I can tell you I am no coward.
Don't confuse people with morality superior to you with people that are cowards.
Also, it seems she wanted to kill people more than the buglers did. Does that mean the family of the man shot are now free to take vengeance? I mean, according to you guys, she lost the right to live by killing.
This is not self defense but purely being taught it is a privilege to get to kill someone and that you should do it when the opportunity arises. Obviously she desperately wanted to kill. That's why she also poses for the media and why this is such a big media story. It is sickening.
You're an evil person for having no idea what you are talking about lmao.
|
When you're threatened, you should have the right to defend yourself. However, in this situation I feel like she had the chance to scare of the intruders before they entered the house, not to mention that she could have tried to wound them not lethally.
On January 05 2012 08:10 Hekisui wrote:
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
My English teacher told us about a friend of his who was an engineer in Texas. He got lost, saw a farm, knocked and was shot through the door... died instantly.
|
On January 05 2012 08:26 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:24 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you. It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity. Elaborate on where it doesn't make sense to you, is it the intent is not the deed? or am i looking at the wrong part?
It's more that there's just no logical follow-on. I can understand that deciding to kill someone makes you worth less to society, and if you ever have to choose life between a murderer and an innocent I'd go with the innocent (assuming other variables are the same). But does that mean that every attempted murderer should be executed? No second chances? No matter the circumstances? No matter if everything in their life has been shit, to the point where most people would give up and go on a killing spree against people they hate?
And what about the person who kills the murderer? What if it scars them? What if they don't want to execute the murderer? Do you force them to kill a killer, even if they don't want to?
There are very few black and white situations in morallity. I would say that this thread is about one, and the woman was absolutely in the right. But a sweeping generalisation about revenge killing using flimsy cliches from an immoral, mistranslated, misrepresented, misconstrued several thousand year old collection of writings from people we know nothing about claiming to have been talked to by a spirit just does not sit right with me.
|
I hope an admin can come in and see that you are purposefully baiting an argument Hekisui, on top of attempting to start a EU vs NA argument.
While she could have potentially fired a warning shot or shouted that she had a gun, it might have just allowed the intruders to change their gameplan and potentially use guns themselves (which she didn't know at the time).
The fact that she is 18 might also explain why she instantly resorted to killing, but I still feel it is justified. Living as a teen mother by herself she probably feels very vulnerable. The intruders could have easily raped and killed her and her baby and the only way she could stop it is with force beyond what the intruders had. She wouldn't be able to defend herself physically unless she's some martial arts expert, and expecting her to be able to accurately aim to disable them instead of killing them when she is scared for her life is unreasonable.
I do not understand why Hekisui thinks this is immoral and unjustified. Is it moral to let people break into a person's home brandishing a weapon meant for killing? You have to be trolling, or you just have a corrupted view on how the world actually works.
|
On January 05 2012 08:31 blade55555 wrote:
You're an evil person for having no idea what you are talking about lmao.
Your comment has no content. Do you have nothing to say? If so why comment? And what's so funny? A 18 year old with a child (why does she have a child at that age wtf) just lost her husband, then gets buglers break into her house and ends up shooting one of them. lmao? No!
On January 05 2012 08:33 Horuku wrote:
I hope an admin can come in and see that you are purposefully baiting an argument Hekisui, on top of attempting to start a EU vs NA argument.
It is against the rules to ask admins to ban someone. Just so you know.
|
On January 05 2012 08:10 Hekisui wrote:
Why all the personal attacks?
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
Someone was killed rather than saved btw.
Someone was killed and two were saved btw.
Did you even read the article? You keep saying they were unarmed but they had HUGE hunting knife! They didn't knock on the door and asked to come in, they were breaking in for almost half an hour! I agree with you that she could've fired a warning shot but what else would she do when the guys entered her home?
|
On January 05 2012 08:35 Hekisui wrote:
It is against the rules to ask admins to ban someone. Just so you know.
Then perhaps you should re-read what I said and see that I didn't ask for them to ban you, just to come in and read your absurd logic. I'm really curious to see what an admin thinks about your skewed beliefs.
|
On January 05 2012 08:33 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:26 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 08:24 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you. It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity. Elaborate on where it doesn't make sense to you, is it the intent is not the deed? or am i looking at the wrong part? It's more that there's just no logical follow-on. I can understand that deciding to kill someone makes you worth less to society, and if you ever have to choose life between a murderer and an innocent I'd go with the innocent (assuming other variables are the same). But does that mean that every attempted murderer should be executed? No second chances? No matter the circumstances? No matter if everything in their life has been shit, to the point where most people would give up and go on a killing spree against people they hate? And what about the person who kills the murderer? What if it scars them? What if they don't want to execute the murderer? Do you force them to kill a killer, even if they don't want to? There are very few black and white situations in morallity. I would say that this thread is about one, and the woman was absolutely in the right. But a sweeping generalisation about revenge killing using flimsy cliches from an immoral, mistranslated, misrepresented, misconstrued several thousand old collection of writings from people we know nothing about claiming to have been talked to by a spirit just does not sit right with me.
I absoulutely see where you're coming from and you are correct. There are few black and white situations in morality and you have to use the information based upon the circumstances which makes it such a hard topic (in my opinion) because you will end up with people sentenced for life for justified killings and you'll have vice versa.
I was suggesting it in these circumstances, these men have proceeded to put a lot of effort into going after this specific person and breaking into the house and clearly brandishing the knife was enough for me to suggest he was planning on taking her life, implying to me he was devoid of life as it is and deserved what he received.
Obviously using the eye for an eye thing is silly as living by that creates a circle of violence until one side runs out of eyes but there are times when it's relevant and there are times when it isn't. if I came off as someone who applies that rule to every situation then my bad I didn't mean to.
|
Guys, just stop replying to him. There are two possible scenarios here:
a) he's a troll, in which case ignore him
b) he genuinely has that opinion on it, in which case he has said his side of the argument and isn't likely to listen to the other side
In neither case is responding worth it.
|
That is completely justified. They went in with the intent to harm/kill her and her child I am sure, so what's the problem here?
This is why I am thankful for the Castle doctrine.
|
On January 05 2012 08:35 Hekisui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:31 blade55555 wrote:
You're an evil person for having no idea what you are talking about lmao. Your comment has no content. Do you have nothing to say? If so why comment? And what's so funny? A 18 year old with a child (why does she have a child at that age wtf) just lost her husband, then gets buglers break into her house and ends up shooting one of them. lmao? No! Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:33 Horuku wrote:
I hope an admin can come in and see that you are purposefully baiting an argument Hekisui, on top of attempting to start a EU vs NA argument. It is against the rules to ask admins to ban someone. Just so you know.
God get banned please
If two men, wielding a 12 inch knife were attempting to break into your home what would you do? If you had a gun you'd use it. If you don't, you're an idiot.
She was protecting her child. A child that cannot protect himself. Do you not understand this/
|
On January 05 2012 08:40 Denzil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:33 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 08:26 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 08:24 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you. It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity. Elaborate on where it doesn't make sense to you, is it the intent is not the deed? or am i looking at the wrong part? It's more that there's just no logical follow-on. I can understand that deciding to kill someone makes you worth less to society, and if you ever have to choose life between a murderer and an innocent I'd go with the innocent (assuming other variables are the same). But does that mean that every attempted murderer should be executed? No second chances? No matter the circumstances? No matter if everything in their life has been shit, to the point where most people would give up and go on a killing spree against people they hate? And what about the person who kills the murderer? What if it scars them? What if they don't want to execute the murderer? Do you force them to kill a killer, even if they don't want to? There are very few black and white situations in morallity. I would say that this thread is about one, and the woman was absolutely in the right. But a sweeping generalisation about revenge killing using flimsy cliches from an immoral, mistranslated, misrepresented, misconstrued several thousand old collection of writings from people we know nothing about claiming to have been talked to by a spirit just does not sit right with me. I absoulutely see where you're coming from and you are correct. There are few black and white situations in morality and you have to use the information based upon the circumstances which makes it such a hard topic (in my opinion) because you will end up with people sentenced for life for justified killings and you'll have vice versa. I was suggesting it in these circumstances, these men have proceeded to put a lot of effort into going after this specific person and breaking into the house and clearly brandishing the knife was enough for me to suggest he was planning on taking her life, implying to me he was devoid of life as it is and deserved what he received. Obviously using the eye for an eye thing is silly as living by that creates a circle of violence until one side runs out of eyes but there are times when it's relevant and there are times when it isn't. if I came off as someone who applies that rule to every situation then my bad I didn't mean to.
I think we're arguing exactly the same thing here but in different ways 
Let's just say I agree with everything in this post :D
|
On January 05 2012 08:41 SeaSwift wrote:
Guys, just stop replying to him. There are two possible scenarios here:
a) he's a troll, in which case ignore him
b) he genuinely has that opinion on it, in which case he has said his side of the argument and isn't likely to listen to the other side
In neither case is responding worth it.
I am going to go with A. He is purposefully trying to bait arguments, his last post containing even more attempts at flame material "18 year old with a child (why does she have a child at that age wtf)."
Makes you wonder how someone can get 200 posts when they are intentionally derailing topics.
|
On January 05 2012 08:42 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:40 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 08:33 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 08:26 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 08:24 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 08:19 ranshaked wrote:On January 05 2012 08:14 SeaSwift wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Denzil wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are people too. To put them down like animals the moment they break the law is immoral and has nothing to do with self defense. The way you respond to my post shows you people completely lack the sensitivity here. This is purely jumping on the opportunity to kill someone just because it is legal. There is a pure lack of moral fiber here. Morality never enters the picture for you people. You can kill. Great. Boom! Dead. Haha. That's it. Answer my question. They lost their right to life, and their rights as a human being the second they made the decision to attempt to take the life of another. They are animals, they deserve to be put down. I disagree with this. What if the person in question has a shit life, with domestic abuse, sexual or assault? No hope of a fulfilling life, no loving family, not friends? You don't know how you would turn out under those circumstances, unless you went through that yourself and think it was easy. Sure, it might not be the case here (there are plenty of guys who just manage to be douchebags), but making a blanket statement that you always lose the right to live as soon as you decide to threaten another's life is wrong. You can't blame the person for killing the intruder. You blame the intruder and people that didn't see it coming. Just like in the columbine case. You blame the school, family and close friends along with the kids for not taking action. I don't know Id you've ever seen true violence, but most people I've seen that have been shot etc were all shot by lunatics that do not deserve life. Once you attempt or take a life then yours should be taken too. An eye for an eye In this circumstance, absolutely, it was self defence. There are tons of reasons why in this circumstance, her shooting that guy with a knife was perfectly justifiable. If she was punished for that it would be a massive miscarriage of justice, and I'd be as pissed off as you. It's more the generalisation you make that I disagree with, that deciding to kill someone automatically makes you deserve to die. The whole "eye for an eye" has never made sense to me: it's a massive oversimplification of morallity. Elaborate on where it doesn't make sense to you, is it the intent is not the deed? or am i looking at the wrong part? It's more that there's just no logical follow-on. I can understand that deciding to kill someone makes you worth less to society, and if you ever have to choose life between a murderer and an innocent I'd go with the innocent (assuming other variables are the same). But does that mean that every attempted murderer should be executed? No second chances? No matter the circumstances? No matter if everything in their life has been shit, to the point where most people would give up and go on a killing spree against people they hate? And what about the person who kills the murderer? What if it scars them? What if they don't want to execute the murderer? Do you force them to kill a killer, even if they don't want to? There are very few black and white situations in morallity. I would say that this thread is about one, and the woman was absolutely in the right. But a sweeping generalisation about revenge killing using flimsy cliches from an immoral, mistranslated, misrepresented, misconstrued several thousand old collection of writings from people we know nothing about claiming to have been talked to by a spirit just does not sit right with me. I absoulutely see where you're coming from and you are correct. There are few black and white situations in morality and you have to use the information based upon the circumstances which makes it such a hard topic (in my opinion) because you will end up with people sentenced for life for justified killings and you'll have vice versa. I was suggesting it in these circumstances, these men have proceeded to put a lot of effort into going after this specific person and breaking into the house and clearly brandishing the knife was enough for me to suggest he was planning on taking her life, implying to me he was devoid of life as it is and deserved what he received. Obviously using the eye for an eye thing is silly as living by that creates a circle of violence until one side runs out of eyes but there are times when it's relevant and there are times when it isn't. if I came off as someone who applies that rule to every situation then my bad I didn't mean to. I think we're arguing exactly the same thing here but in different ways Let's just say I agree with everything in this post :D
fair enough
|
18 year old girls with children killing men with firearms... trailerpark stories :D woot!!!
|
For the people who say it'd have been better to wound him -
She said on the call, "is it ok to shoot him?" The only thing implied there is that she tried to shoot them. You can't just say she definitrly tried to kill them - she shot the guy, the guy died. That's it.
|
On January 05 2012 08:49 JinDesu wrote:
For the people who say it'd have been better to wound him -
She said on the call, "is it ok to shoot him?" The only thing implied there is that she tried to shoot them. You can't just say she definitrly tried to kill them - she shot the guy, the guy died. That's it.
I'd also say that she had no idea what kind of weapons the intruders had either. If you think your opponent is carrying a shotgun rather than a knife, you don't aim to wound. Especially not if you are protecting a baby, and are not for sure competent in a firefight.
|
On January 05 2012 08:49 JinDesu wrote:
For the people who say it'd have been better to wound him -
She said on the call, "is it ok to shoot him?" The only thing implied there is that she tried to shoot them. You can't just say she definitrly tried to kill them - she shot the guy, the guy died. That's it.
And how many people can accurately shoot a good to wound? It's not as easy as it looks. I've shot a gun once. I can definitely tell you that it would take me quite a while to properly learn to hit exactly where I want it to go.
|
Well the story does say the man came at her with the knife, so I imagine she knew what weapon at that point. However, it is also hilariously unintelligent to assume you can "wound" a person as to merely disable them when you have a gun facing a person at close quarters wielding a knife. The most likely result is the girl shooting at the largest bit of the guy, and the guy either surviving or not. In this case, it appears not.
edit - i was wrong aboutthe second guy. he turned himself in, so he must have ran.
|
On January 05 2012 08:41 SeaSwift wrote:
Guys, just stop replying to him. There are two possible scenarios here:
a) he's a troll, in which case ignore him
b) he genuinely has that opinion on it, in which case he has said his side of the argument and isn't likely to listen to the other side
In neither case is responding worth it.
I think with a comment like
18 year old with a child (why does she have a child at that age wtf).
I'm gonna go with A.
|
On January 05 2012 07:59 RageOverdose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:53 Makaveli1 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is. Dude, If somebody was trying to break in your door with a huge ass hunting knife and trying to kill you and your son, and the only way to live would be to shoot him, wouldn't you shoot him? ._____. I'm fine with the mother's decision, but to play a counter point, she could disable them instead of kill them.
How would she disable them? It's not easy to shoot someone with a shotgun such that you only cripple them, without going too close to them to be safe from the hunting knife. Keep in mind that there were also TWO of them, so something like pepperspray or mace, which would not be very effective anyway, would not have worked at all.
|
On January 05 2012 09:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 07:59 RageOverdose wrote:On January 05 2012 07:53 Makaveli1 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is. Dude, If somebody was trying to break in your door with a huge ass hunting knife and trying to kill you and your son, and the only way to live would be to shoot him, wouldn't you shoot him? ._____. I'm fine with the mother's decision, but to play a counter point, she could disable them instead of kill them. How would she disable them? It's not easy to shoot someone with a shotgun such that you only cripple them, without going too close to them to be safe from the hunting knife. Keep in mind that there were also TWO of them, so something like pepperspray or mace, which would not be very effective anyway, would not have worked at all.
Personally I think I would go for the legs. But IDK what I would do if I were actually in that situation, so I don't blame her.
|
On January 05 2012 09:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 RageOverdose wrote:On January 05 2012 07:53 Makaveli1 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is. Dude, If somebody was trying to break in your door with a huge ass hunting knife and trying to kill you and your son, and the only way to live would be to shoot him, wouldn't you shoot him? ._____. I'm fine with the mother's decision, but to play a counter point, she could disable them instead of kill them. How would she disable them? It's not easy to shoot someone with a shotgun such that you only cripple them, without going too close to them to be safe from the hunting knife. Keep in mind that there were also TWO of them, so something like pepperspray or mace, which would not be very effective anyway, would not have worked at all. Personally I think I would go for the legs. But IDK what I would do if I were actually in that situation, so I don't blame her.
It's still hard to aim that well in a situation like that. You would probably not have that moment in which you decide to aim for the legs, and would just aim for whatever was easiest to hit, as others have said previously.
|
Just to sweep Hekisui's leg from under him: In the Netherlands you're allowed to use lethal force in life threatening selfdefence situations, which this one clearly is (because of the knife), especially with a baby behind her.
If this exact thing happened over here (although not likely because the police would arrive faster, small dense country etc) she would not be charged with murder. She might get fined for possession of weapons but that's a separate charge.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 09:29 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:26 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 09:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 RageOverdose wrote:On January 05 2012 07:53 Makaveli1 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is. Dude, If somebody was trying to break in your door with a huge ass hunting knife and trying to kill you and your son, and the only way to live would be to shoot him, wouldn't you shoot him? ._____. I'm fine with the mother's decision, but to play a counter point, she could disable them instead of kill them. How would she disable them? It's not easy to shoot someone with a shotgun such that you only cripple them, without going too close to them to be safe from the hunting knife. Keep in mind that there were also TWO of them, so something like pepperspray or mace, which would not be very effective anyway, would not have worked at all. Personally I think I would go for the legs. But IDK what I would do if I were actually in that situation, so I don't blame her. It's still hard to aim that well in a situation like that. You would probably not have that moment in which you decide to aim for the legs, and would just aim for whatever was easiest to hit, as others have said previously.
You aim for the center of mass, period. If you're shooting a weapon as a civilian it is because you're afraid for your life. You are not trained nor obligated to try and make a non-lethal shot. It's absurd to increase your own at risk in the hope you don't critically wound the person who is trying to at the minimum assault you with a deadly weapon, and potentially murder you.
|
Sad story.... I'm generally against killing people in "self defense" (as in, WHAT IS HE DOING IN MY HOME SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER) But this seems like a pretty clear case of the killer doing the right thing... pretty weird that someone would break in the door to attack someone armed with a shotgun using only a hunting knife though, she could have probably prevented this if she had fired a warning shot or something. Not placing any blame on her though it's not like i expect an 18 YO mother protecting her baby to act all rational 
|
On January 05 2012 09:37 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:29 Demonhunter04 wrote:On January 05 2012 09:26 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 09:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 RageOverdose wrote:On January 05 2012 07:53 Makaveli1 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is. Dude, If somebody was trying to break in your door with a huge ass hunting knife and trying to kill you and your son, and the only way to live would be to shoot him, wouldn't you shoot him? ._____. I'm fine with the mother's decision, but to play a counter point, she could disable them instead of kill them. How would she disable them? It's not easy to shoot someone with a shotgun such that you only cripple them, without going too close to them to be safe from the hunting knife. Keep in mind that there were also TWO of them, so something like pepperspray or mace, which would not be very effective anyway, would not have worked at all. Personally I think I would go for the legs. But IDK what I would do if I were actually in that situation, so I don't blame her. It's still hard to aim that well in a situation like that. You would probably not have that moment in which you decide to aim for the legs, and would just aim for whatever was easiest to hit, as others have said previously. You aim for the center of mass, period. If you're shooting a weapon as a civilian it is because you're afraid for your life. You are not trained nor obligated to try and make a non-lethal shot. It's absurd to increase your own at risk in the hope you don't critically wound the person who is trying to at the minimum assault you with a deadly weapon, and potentially murder you.
Not to argue with you, just to clarify this from the point of view of the law because you raise a valid, reasonable point.
It doesn't need to be the same for all countries around the world but most follow the same reasoning: Killing in self-defence - i.e. defending all the goods you have: property, liberty, life, your family, etc - is ultima ratio but it's covered if the circumstances are there.
Generally, one is to consider if a less agressive/defensive measure can be applied: a warning (shot) or a non-lethal reaction can have the same protective outcome. But in a situation like this, judges usually factor in that you might have no time to act less harshly (if the risk of endangering yourself or the baby in that case is too big) or simply that you're too scared to think clearly. In that case, what prevails is the interest of the one who's innocent and not at fault over the one who's deliberately endangering you. There's a threshold of leniency for the defenders as well as an influence of common sense. And the doubt (how the circumstances really were) benefits the person who defends herself.
|
On January 05 2012 08:16 Hekisui wrote:
Why am I a troll? Sheesh.
She was never attacked. They didn't know she had a gun. She never fired a warning shot. The other guy wasn't shot and he didn't kill her. As the article reads, she killed him the first opportunity she got. In the Netherlands she would be found guilty for sure.
Same in UK.
You saying the lawmakers in those countries are trolling too? You choose to be wrong to be immoral. Sad.
People like Denzil proof my point and proof that I am not trolling. It is just people being brought up with bad morality. Not a disagreement over how much violence one can use in defense of property.
I disagree with your opinion. I don't know about you, but if I saw someone with a knife in their hands I'm pretty sure its threatening and I need to defend myself. Their actions could be unpredictable, like throwing something in my eyes or doing something to distract me from being able to shoot them if I needed to, so it is their choice to give up their life and be shot. They could be hiding some hidden weapon or item and just be showing their knife as a front. You cannot predict everything so the best case if you value your life is to simply shoot them. Not saying human life should be easy to take, but it's reasonable to shoot them because they are threatening your life. When there aren't any authorities nearby to save you, it should be clear it's either potentially kill some criminal (meaning you disable, kill or w/e you need to do to protect yourself) or get killed. If you really value your life and put yourself in that situation where you're in danger, are you going to take your chances and just try to disable them or talk them out of harming you? Who knows how sick they are mentally or w/e, sure they need help but again, its you or the other person. I value my life so I would shoot them in the head, no chance for any response or counter attack from the other partner.
|
On January 05 2012 08:31 ggrrg wrote:When you're threatened, you should have the right to defend yourself. However, in this situation I feel like she had the chance to scare of the intruders before they entered the house, not to mention that she could have tried to wound them not lethally. Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 08:10 Hekisui wrote:
Well I hope I never go to the US or Canada, get lost, knock on someones door late at night and get shot instantly.
My English teacher told us about a friend of his who was an engineer in Texas. He got lost, saw a farm, knocked and was shot through the door... died instantly.
Nice story, but I hope you know the difference is that your English teacher's friend was only knocking on the door, while these men were busting down the door with a knife. Your English teacher's friend is a victim of unnecessary violence and it was an overreaction of that farmer. If the farmer thought that person was threatening within reason which isn't the case, since he was only knocking, the farmer is at fault here. This 18 year old mother on the hand had a choice to either let these men armed with a knife over power her and kill her or w/e they were intending to do OR she can save herself like she did and shoot them.
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2012 10:13 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2012 09:37 Myles wrote:On January 05 2012 09:29 Demonhunter04 wrote:On January 05 2012 09:26 Djzapz wrote:On January 05 2012 09:21 Demonhunter04 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:59 RageOverdose wrote:On January 05 2012 07:53 Makaveli1 wrote:On January 05 2012 07:49 Hekisui wrote:
Well only responses from people from NA. It is pretty clear that part of the world is morally degenerated even more than Europe is. Dude, If somebody was trying to break in your door with a huge ass hunting knife and trying to kill you and your son, and the only way to live would be to shoot him, wouldn't you shoot him? ._____. I'm fine with the mother's decision, but to play a counter point, she could disable them instead of kill them. How would she disable them? It's not easy to shoot someone with a shotgun such that you only cripple them, without going too close to them to be safe from the hunting knife. Keep in mind that there were also TWO of them, so something like pepperspray or mace, which would not be very effective anyway, would not have worked at all. Personally I think I would go for the legs. But IDK what I would do if I were actually in that situation, so I don't blame her. It's still hard to aim that well in a situation like that. You would probably not have that moment in which you decide to aim for the legs, and would just aim for whatever was easiest to hit, as others have said previously. You aim for the center of mass, period. If you're shooting a weapon as a civilian it is because you're afraid for your life. You are not trained nor obligated to try and make a non-lethal shot. It's absurd to increase your own at risk in the hope you don't critically wound the person who is trying to at the minimum assault you with a deadly weapon, and potentially murder you. Not to argue with you, just to clarify this from the point of view of the law because you raise a valid, reasonable point. It doesn't need to be the same for all countries around the world but most follow the same reasoning: Killing in self-defence - i.e. defending all the goods you have: property, liberty, life, your family, etc - is ultima ratio but it's covered if the circumstances are there. Generally, one is to consider if a less agressive/defensive measure can be applied: a warning (shot) or a non-lethal reaction can have the same protective outcome. But in a situation like this, judges usually factor in that you might have no time to act less harshly (if the risk of endangering yourself or the baby in that case is too big) or simply that you're too scared to think clearly. In that case, what prevails is the interest of the one who's innocent and not at fault over the one who's deliberately endangering you. There's a threshold of leniency for the defenders as well as an influence of common sense. And the doubt (how the circumstances really were) benefits the person who defends herself.
The aspect of a warning is the only thing in this situation which has any validity imo. The duo was trying to break in for a good 20 minutes and she was on the phone with a dispatcher the whole time. I would think that she would have an opportunity to warn them she has a gun, but at the same time that only increases the odds that they will immediately shoot you if they also have one. In the end, I don't think there is any reason someone should be prohibited from shooting an armed person intruding into their home.
|
^ Completely agree with you.
Also, it's a woman (and a mother) against 2 men. She ain't gonna overpower them manually. She really didn't have any other reasonable choice.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
In most states (that operate under Castle Doctrine) I believe you don't need to shout any warning. If there are intruders in your house, you can shoot them.
If it was me and I was feeling confident, I would probably shout a warning. A terrified 18-yo mother on the other hard, shouldn't reveal her hand like that. Alerting the scumbags who may have been carrying firearms themselves would have handed the advantage to them.
|
On January 05 2012 11:13 ahswtini wrote:
In most states (that operate under Castle Doctrine) I believe you don't need to shout any warning. If there are intruders in your house, you can shoot them.
If it was me and I was feeling confident, I would probably shout a warning. A terrified 18-yo mother on the other hard, shouldn't reveal her hand like that. Alerting the scumbags who may have been carrying firearms themselves would have handed the advantage to them.
Agreed. The temptation is to look with hindsight and analyze in a vacuum, saying she had this this and that option, but did she really? Average person with no crisis experience or training, you can't expect them make 100% tactical and thoughtout moves. Hell, even trained cops overreact under pressure.
I give her a lot of leeway, and this falls comfortably within that. I also think breaking into a house with a weapon is pretty much as far as you can let anything go. Sure, maybe he was bluffing and not really a killer, but from the POV of the victim, you can't afford to wait and see how it plays out.
|
Oklahoma, of course xD She did the right thing in my opinion. How can you not resist marrying women like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
