225 replies to this topic 1 votes

[KingCracker]

Hardcore Til I Die, on 06 January 2013 - 12:33, said:

Right, but in many US states it's not illegal to kill someone who trespasses on your property.

The guy was banging on this woman's door and she ran upstairs, then he bust the door with a crowbaw. I don't think she had much time to think about which weapon to use; nor would you.

If it was me, I'd grab the closest thing, whether that be a knife, baseball bat, golf club, or whatever. It wouldn't be a gun because I don't own one.

When you and your family is threatened you wouldn't have time to think about the consequences like you do when you're sat discussing it on a forum.

Exactly, you dont mess with a family and you dont break into someones house.You do then you get whats coming to you.

[+Anarkii]

Still, what that woman did was overkill.
And that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

KingCracker, on 06 January 2013 - 12:44, said:

Exactly, you dont mess with a family and you dont break into someones house.You do then you get whats coming to you.

I don't blame the woman for using a gun; after all they are legal in the US and she and her family were in danger. I do, however, think guns should be outlawed.

Anarkii, on 06 January 2013 - 12:50, said:

Still, what that woman did was overkill.
And that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

Was it though? You weren't there, so how do you know. The article doesn't make it clear whether the burglar fell after the first shot or after all six. Maybe he was still standing until she fired the sixth shot.

[trag3dy]

Anarkii, on 06 January 2013 - 12:23, said:

I read this from page 1 and already laughing to myself how people in this thread think shooting someone in the neck 5 times is a good thing.
If I were to break into somones home while they are home, i'd expect a baseball bat to the head, not 5 freaking bullets to the neck.

What the hell is wrong with you people?!

Good thing you don't live in the US then.

[Rohdekill]

hooko22, on 06 January 2013 - 06:39, said:

I have to agree that I feel like five bullets is a little much but perhaps understandable if the woman was in a panick, but there's a question if she would have been able to warn the guy to back off before she shot him. I wasn't there however so I am not gonna make any big claims. Just sayin.

Whether she had time to warn him to back off or not is irrelevant. There's no law that says one must first politely warn someone that is about to mame, rape or kill you to kindly leave you alone before you inflict harm.

Why does society always want to turn responsibility on to anyone other than who it belongs? The man who broke in decided to do so. The man who searched for the family decided to do so. ANY action the wife or kids performed at that point are 100% justified. The only one responsible for his/her actions here is the man as it was his actions and decisions which created the event and caused the reactions of others. She owes no one any explanation on why she reacted in the way she did. And, we should not question her actions, rather his.

[DocM]

Anarkii, on 06 January 2013 - 12:29, said:

Crack em in the head with a baseball bat.

Putting yourself at greatly increased risk by putting yourself within reach of the aggressor. He counters the bat, which isn't that hard, and you're toast. Real smart, NOT - because once you're taken out your family is essentially defenseless. Riggghhhttt....and profoundly STUPID.

Better to use a stanoff weapon like a gun where you can counterattack several times before the perp has s chance to get to anyone, particularly the kids.

Quote

No bloody way am I shootin anyone and doing 25 to life for first degree murder. Anyone with half a brain would do the same thing.

That you might face charges for doing what is right, protect your loved ones, is a failing of your leaders and legal system. In the US we have a basic right to self defense, especially in the home, and the blame is the perps. The burden of proof is also not on the defender, and in all but a very few locales they also have civil immunity - they cannot be sued by the perps or their families.

[Dot Matrix]

Anarkii, on 06 January 2013 - 12:29, said:

Crack em in the head with a baseball bat. No bloody way am I shootin anyone and doing 25 to life for first degree murder. Anyone with half a brain would do the same thing.

Castle Doctrine would have your back. It's not illegal to defend yourself with a handgun. Eitherway, you still crack someone in the skull with a bat, and the man dies, you still killed him.

Anarkii, on 06 January 2013 - 12:50, said:

Still, what that woman did was overkill.
And that's all that needs to be said on the matter.

Get between a mama bear and her cubs. When she's ripping you to shreds without a care in the world, come back and tell me that's "overkill".

[Enron]

Must have been a pea shooter if he got hit in the face and neck 5 times and was able to drive away

[DocM]

Enron, on 06 January 2013 - 14:34, said:

Must have been a pea shooter if he got hit in the face and neck 5 times and was able to drive away

A .38 round will kill but only if you directly hit a vital spot. Otherwise it just drills holes. Put a 9mm, .357 SIG, .40 or .45 with an HST (hydra-shok) style bullet in the same spot and half their head comes off from the massive shockwave.

.38's cannot do that, which is why the FBI solicited the creation of the .40 (which begat the .357 SIG - a round that delivers .357 Mag ballistics in a semi-automatic) after a Florida shootout where their .38's failed disastrously and they lost several agents. Now the .40 is a widely used law enforcement & concealed carry weapon.

[DConnell]

I don't own a gun, but i do own a staff & nunchuks. I used to live with my cousins, and they have kids. If someone broke in when I had been watching the kids, I would have beat the living cr@p out of him until he left or stopped moving. If the latter, only after I was sure the kids were safe would I care if the burgler were dead or merely unconscious.

If my family is threatened, they come first. The only rights the criminal has involve fleeing or lying still until the cops arrive.

[jjkusaf]

Not sure what all the fuss is about. The mother and kids are ok. Doesn't matter how many times she fired or what weapon she used. She was doing what she had to do to protect herself and her twins. Now the criminal has to face (pun intended) the consequences of his actions.

Just a shame the family probably will have pay for the damages done to the home and the blood soaked carpet.

[DocM]

That's what homeowners insurance is for. Not to mentionthat on conviction the perp could be assessed damages.

[KingCracker]

DocM, on 06 January 2013 - 14:42, said:

A .38 round will kill but only if you directly hit a vital spot. Otherwise it just drills holes. Put a 9mm, .357 SIG, .40 or .45 with an HST (hydra-shok) style bullet in the same spot and half their head comes off from the massive shockwave.

.38's cannot do that, which is why the FBI solicited the creation of the .40 (which begat the .357 SIG - a round that delivers .357 Mag ballistics in a semi-automatic) after a Florida shootout where their .38's failed disastrously and they lost several agents. Now the .40 is a widely used law enforcement & concealed carry weapon.

Love the .40 I was hitting my target from 50 yards on a slight slope lol. I use hydra shok rounds for personal defense.

[Tyler R.]

Get 'em. She had every right to to defend herself and her children.

[FlintyV]

KingCracker, on 06 January 2013 - 11:56, said:

Just like people in the U.K use to like guns until the government used anti gun propaganda to change their opinion. Now a lot people are indoctrinated with a hate for guns there. Use propaganda to sway the minds of people, indoctrinate the people with fear and hate of all things gun and we get what we see in gun related threads an all out hate for guns and gun owners.

So now you've learnt that it wasn't the UK Government that took guns away as you previously thought, but now you've learnt that it was in fact an effort led by the people to ban guns but you're putting a twist on it that it was done with government anti-gun propaganda even though it was a public-led petition which garnered enough support to be put to the government?

I'd love to see proof of this anti-gun propaganda that the government put out in the few weeks after the Dunblane Massacre which led to the petition being created which you say exists.