Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DocM

Mother defends kids, shoots intruder

224 posts in this topic

Police report would say otherwise. :rolleyes:

Got a link to the police report? Not seeing it anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a link to the police report? Not seeing it anywhere.

Stop trolling. You have no proof the news report is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your logic, he should have given warning before breaking in too, right? You break into my home, it's open season. More places here in the US are adopting "Stand Your Ground" and "castle" laws because no one should have to play nice when the sanctity of their home is violated. Break into someone's home, expect to get shot. No one has to 'give a warning'. Ever.

Agreed. If someone breaks into my house I'm not going to shout out my location and hope they don't have a gun themselves. If they break into my house, I hate to say it but I'd probably kill them if I had kids to protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do you suppose he had intended to do after breaking into the house with a crow bar? Offer a free pedicure?

You seem to think there is nothing wrong with breaking into someone's house. I think you're just trolling.

ATTENTION EVERYONE HAWKMAN IS JUST TROLLING

Firstly I never said his intentions where good. I am however saying you cannon assume his intentions where to rape murder and slice up the people he didn't know was in the house. In fact I think she could have been right in shooting in and had that right, HOWEVER, I also think that she should have made her presence known, she should have given him a chance to turn and run, she should have given her chance to not be a killer.

in fact in Norway she most likely would have gotten away on self defense. But that would have been decided by the court, so that people don't just randomly shoot anyone that they think are threatening.

as for your troll comment.... wtg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop trolling. You have no proof the news report is incorrect.

Well likewise there is no proof the news report is correct either, just trying to see the whole story here for myself and not how the media wants me to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I never said his intentions where good. I am however saying you cannon assume his intentions where to rape murder and slice up the people he didn't know was in the house. In fact I think she could have been right in shooting in and had that right, HOWEVER, I also think that she should have made her presence known, she should have given him a chance to turn and run, she should have given her chance to not be a killer.

in fact in Norway she most likely would have gotten away on self defense. But that would have been decided by the court, so that people don't just randomly shoot anyone that they think are threatening.

as for your troll comment.... wtg.

She didn't "randomly" shoot someone. She shot someone that was in her house illegally.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To HawkMan and TheLegendOfMart:

"I really wish you NOT but if you have a family and a similar scenario comes into play and well what you know, no 0.38 here, and you go to the hospital after your wife and kids are harmed or raped or even killed.. I wish I could see you STRAIGHT in the eyes if you can say with a STRAIGHT face that you WOULDNT WISH your wife had a f*cking gun in her hands at that time..."

I know this isn't for me, but I don't get what your point is, I mean who wouldn't want someone to have a gun in such a senario?

TheLegendOfMart was arguing that one shouldn't shoot to kill with out warning on someone who is invading a home, under the assumption that the invader would kill or rape them.

Agreed. If someone breaks into my house I'm not going to shout out my location and hope they don't have a gun themselves. If they break into my house, I hate to say it but I'd probably kill them if I had kids to protect.

I'd still think you'd have quite the advantage, as they have to come to your location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trolling or not, I'm still waiting their replies to the below.. ;)

To HawkMan and TheLegendOfMart:

"I really wish you NOT but if you have a family and a similar scenario comes into play and well what you know, no 0.38 here, and you go to the hospital after your wife and kids are harmed or raped or even killed.. I wish I could see you STRAIGHT in the eyes if you can say with a STRAIGHT face that you WOULDNT WISH your wife had a f*cking gun in her hands at that time..."

As I have said. I don't mind shooting people in self defense. but you first have to make sure it's actually self defense, and not just shooting to shoot. she didn't give the guy ANY chance to retreat according to the article, she simply jumped out of a corner and started wildly blasting away at his face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop trolling. You have no proof the news report is incorrect.

I am not trolling. You said the police report says otherwise so I am assuming you read the report. Do you have a link to the report you read or are you in fact trolling? I am actually curious to read the police report.

As I have said. I don't mind shooting people in self defense. but you first have to make sure it's actually self defense, and not just shooting to shoot. she didn't give the guy ANY chance to retreat according to the article, she simply jumped out of a corner and started wildly blasting away at his face.

Sure she did. She had a door that clearly marked where her property is. He choose to ignore the warning and bypass the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see the thing is, in the rest of the civilized world, trespassing isn't ground for shooting in self defense, being actually threatened with a weapon is self defense or fighting back, and in some special cases being in fear for your life, but then it has to be a justifiable fear.

as I said, she probably would have gotten off on self defense, but it would have been up to the court system with all the information at hand to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trolling. You said the police report says otherwise so I am assuming you read the report. Do you have a link to the report you read or are you in fact trolling? I am actually curious to read the police report.

Sure she did. She had a door that clearly marked where her property is. He choose to ignore the warning and bypass the door.

My bad. I was surprised you quoted me saying that. No police report would be made available so soon but reporters can get the facts from the police which we can only assume occurred. So let us drop trolling comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

I just don't get how anyone thinks its acceptable to murder someone who breaks into your home. That's what the courts and prison is for.

"Murder" is an UNjustifiable homicide of another. This was clearly ruled a justifiable homicide and therefore not murder.

This waste of skin broke into a home, ignored valuables in the living area, and proceeded to search the house with a tool that could be used as a weapon in his posession. The legal presumption in such cases is that he is a Home Invader - a legal designation in some states (Michigan included) but similar to aggravated robbery where violence against the occupants is part of the original plan. Under just about every self-defense statute I'm aware of it's open season on Home Invaders, as it should be.

Also, most states make a clear distinction between break-ins that happen during the day and those that are committed at night;

Generally, daytime robbers assume the absense of the occupants; most people are at work or school, so it's generally a property crime and treated less severely unless there is evidence to the contrary.

OTOH, those who do break-ins at night are legally assumed to be much more dangerous because the home can be assumed to be occupied, so the crime is treated more harshly and the occupants are given much more leeway in defending themselves. Home Invasion / Aggravated Robbery are assumed, especially if they posess anything that could be used as a restraint or weapon.

Basically, do a break-in at night and you are putting your own life at risk.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 shots in the face is self defence?

Doesn't even say that she warned him or told him to get out, he broke in and was instantly faced with a weapon and she fired all the rounds off.

Can't wait to see how this is spinned into something positive.

She had right to lethal force once this happened

"the intruder had forced his way into the three-story residence on Henderson Ridge Drive with a crowbar, authorities said. He allegedly rummaged through the home, eventually working his way up to the attic office."

If it was "she opened the door and blew him away", that would be something different completely.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was "she opened the door and blew him away", that would be something different completely.

Depends on the state. Some require the perp to enter the dwelling, while others extend the defensive perimeter to the "chattels" - the property immediately adjacent to the dwelling (porch, steps etc.) and others include the outbuildings and garage. Some extend it to the property line.

For those of us with carry licenses it travels with us and allows us to protect ourselves, our companions and usually crime victims we encounter using our citizens arrest powers (49 of 50 states have citizens arrest.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said there was no chance, I just think is funny that pro-gunners automatically jump to the conclusion that he was there to rape and murder everyone.

i am anti gun and i still jump to the conclusion of "don't take chances and do what you have to do". You are doing the same thing assuming he wouldn't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Long Island native, who now lives in Gwinnett County, was released from the Gwinnett jail in late August after serving six months for simple battery and three counts of probation violation. Slater has six other arrests in Gwinnett dating back to 2008, according to jail records.

Paul-Slater.jpg

The house where the man broke in is in a rural area where the house stands alone.

010613_ff_intruder_640.jpg

for all you who think the woman was excessive, should have given a warning, dropped her pants and let him stick it in, GO check yourself into a mental institution. Police on the interview were stupid so suppose the man just wanted to steal. I pointed out how he reportedly went through the house looking for people not things to steal. He has a record of physically harming others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't agree with civilians having guns but..............................

Considering its legal in America I can't say that I wouldn't do the same in her situation considering how remote it is. If it was the "suburbs" I would have gone straight out the back and to a neighbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul-Slater.jpg

The house where the man broke in is in a rural area where the house stands alone.

010613_ff_intruder_640.jpg

He broke into a house in a rural area... thats just dumb. Well known fact that most people in rural areas keep at least one shotgun/rifle in the house. Having to deal with coyotes, racoons, bobcats, sometimes mountain lions or bears depending on where you live. Breaking into a rural house increases your odds ten fold of being shot. Criminal made his choice.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy didn't know she was in, you are talking like he broke in just to rape and kill them. He rang the bell constantly and she didn't call out and tell him to go away, she didn't run out the back to get away, she called her husband then went to get the gun and hid.

She didn't even give the guy chance to back down, she just pulled the trigger till the gun was empty.

If she was scared she should have just got the kids and ran out the back and into a neighbours house to call the police.

RInging the bell to get someone to answer then invading the home, or once you know no one is home is a pretty standard tactic for the criminals.

It doesnt matter one whit what his intention was, if she has reasonable fear that she or the kids lives or bodies are at risk, she is 100% allowed to defend with lethal force to stop the threat. He broke into her home, she has small children, its not like he grabbed the TV and ran, he looked for them.

Just breaking into a home with small children is enough to give anyone reasonable fear at the LEAST for the children.

I just don't get how anyone thinks its acceptable to murder someone who breaks into your home. That's what the courts and prison is for.

I do not think it is right to murder a burglar

Its not murder, if you want to think of it as anything, the felon is comitting suicide. Its not like its some secret that US homeowners may have firearms, and that its lawful to use them to defend their lives, and in some states, property.

but if you have a gun and do not have a formal training (I mean a serious police/military training), you pretty much have no change to fire nonlethal shots. You aim for the hands or legs and you'll probably miss. So in order to protect yourself with the gun, you need to aim for the head or the chest, so you'll at least hit something.

That is, if you actually have to fire the gun in order to save yourself. If the mere presence of a gun is enough, you shouldn't ever fire it.

I shoot better with handguns than most Law Enforcement, I wouldnt shoot for anything but center mass and head either.

Law Enforcement are also trained center mass and head only. Unless your target is standing stock still, its at least suicidal to shoot at arms and legs as you will most likely miss and there is still little chance of incapacitating the attacker with a hit. Add to that the fact that every bullet fired has a lawyer attached to it, those missed shots become even more important because you are accountable for where they end up

I never said there was no chance, I just think is funny that pro-gunners automatically jump to the conclusion that he was there to rape and murder everyone.

Just like its funny that Anti-gunners jump to the conclusion that all firearms enthusiasts are irresponsible unintelligent rednecks who are just one step from gunning down the next person to cut them off? Yea, I know what you mean.

Except rape, violent crime and murder are all far far far more common than a responsible gun owner just snapping and taking lives.

This story just doesn't seem complete, if someone knocks on my door I answer it or at least ask who it is. Seems to have been spun in a way to cause reaction, a convenient reaction at that.

As above, its a VERY common tactic for criminals to knock on doors then invade when its answered, or break in when its not answered, It happens in this town a fair amount even, and where I live is small, like 40k ish people.

I see no spin beyond what is actually a common occurrence from the standpoint of the breakin/invasion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

I shoot better with handguns than most Law Enforcement, I wouldnt shoot for anything but center mass and head either.

So do most gun owners.

Cops rarely have to fire on duty, many go through their entire career without doing so, and many departments only require recertification every 1-5 years and then they may fire less than 100 rounds. OTOH, I shoot about 300-400 rounds a month, half on a tactical range and at distances from 5-30 yards.

Also, statistically cops hit an innocent in the background >11 percent of the time, while civilian carry licensees do so less than 1 percent of the time.

Law Enforcement are also trained center mass and head only. Unless your target is standing stock still, its at least suicidal to shoot at arms and legs as you will most likely miss....

>

Center of mass & head shots have a 40-70+ percent likelihood of hitting, depending on the range. Arm / leg shots are a lower percentage shot at from 10-15 percent - at best. This is why trainers teach both cops and civilian licensees to shoot center of mass or the head, and all tactical targets reflect this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no. Don't shoot a burglar they just trying to take care of their family. It's so wrong to shoot them. I mean I know they are grown adults who know it's wrong to break into someone's home and steal, but at least tell them to go away before shooting them. I know I'm a complete moron for thinking this.

/sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Would it not better all around if people armed themselves tazers?

I mean, maybe there's a disadvantage to them, I honestly don't know.

Not always effective. I work in a criminal defence lawyers office. One of our clients was high on cocaine and mephedrone during an arrest. Was tasered five or six times by police and they had no effect, he just ripped the cables out. Had to be tackled eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheLegendOfMart was arguing that one shouldn't shoot to kill with out warning on someone who is invading a home, under the assumption that the invader would kill or rape them.

The problem with that silly logic is that he's not taking into account the woman's fear. She didn't have the benefit of sitting comfortably and discussing the matter on a forum, she just had a split second decision to make. He says she should have given a warning but she didn't know whether the intruder was armed or not. Why reveal her location when he might have a gun too? She's not a trained cop.

The burglar was the one in the wrong here. If he hadnt broken into the house, he wouldn't have been shot. Simple as.

I can't believe anybody would actually think this is anyone but the burglars fault. That's preposterous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more mom's like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.