Mother defends kids, shoots intruder

[techbeck]

Right. Whatever, buddy. Go read the Castle Doctrine article on Wikipedia. Do your research on it. You'll see we have every right to defend ourselves with firearms just as much as we do with any other weapon.

Come here to the states and watch as these guys laugh in your face with you and your baseball bat. Because that ain't gonna do ****.

Castle doctrine is stupid, IMO. Shoot first ask questions later if still alive. Just gives people more excuses to shoot someone. Needs to be stricter rules around this especially with the recent shootings as I am sure many people are on edge and trigger happy. Yes, defend your homes if need be but be smart to determine if the person on your property is actually there to do harm, or just lost/confused. (not talking about this thread)

[strotee]

but there is such thing as excessive force.

I don't know man, it's not like she's strung him up and tortured him while waiting for the cops to arrive. Now that would have been excessive. Very few juries will sympathize with the intruder. Lone woman with kids, scared to death, adrenaline pumping, not knowing if intruder is there to rape or worse.

[Azusa]

Again, that doesn't justify trying to kill someone. I'm glad we have reasonable and excessive force laws in the UK, I'd hate to live in a place where a law gives you a chance to use your itchy trigger finger to end someones life.

I'm done here.

you use the word "someone" as if we're talking about a human being here.

[TheLegendOfMart]

I don't know man, it's not like she's strung him up and tortured him while waiting for the cops to arrive. Now that would have been excessive. Very few juries will sympathize with the intruder. Lone woman with kids, scared to death, adrenaline pumping, not knowing if intruder is there to rape or worse.

First reasonable person in the thread, shame it took 4 pages.

I agree, I'm not trying to sympathise with the intruder, if you break into someones home who may or may not have a weapon then they deserve what they get, but 5 shots in the face is a bit much.

[DocM]

Wasn't referencing you, just the OP.

How did she have every right to blow his head off in the article it doesn't even say that she gave him a warning, he broke into the house not knowing there was anyone there, that doesn't give someone an automatic right to empty whatever weapon they have into someones head, that's why there are police and judges.

No warning required in the vast majority of states. It is assumed that a home invader is dangerous and you have every right to assume they are a threat to your familys life and dispatch them forthwith.

As for multiple shots, in the (usually police taught) self defense classes they teach using double or triple taps (shot groups) with lightly powered weapons like the .38, .380 or 9mm. They also teach to keep firing if they keep coming - until they drop.

In Michigan you can even shoot them while they are trying to escape under our 'Fleeing Felon Rule.' Whatever it takes to stop them from escaping in furtherance of a citizens arrest, a common citizens police power, even if it kills them. We don't play games in these parts.

[Dot Matrix]

Castle doctrine is stupid, IMO. Shoot first ask questions later if still alive. Just gives people more excuses to shoot someone. Needs to be stricter rules around this especially with the recent shootings as I am sure many people are on edge and trigger happy. Yes, defend your homes if need be but be smart to determine if the person on your property is actually there to do harm, or just lost/confused. (not talking about this thread)

Castle Doctrine doesn't give me any rights other than to defend myself, my family, and my property without legal repercussions. It doesn't give me the right to leave my property and shoot everything up.

[techbeck]

Castle Doctrine doesn't give me any rights other than to defend myself, my family, and my property without legal repercussions. It doesn't give me the right to leave my property and shoot everything up.

Not what I said or meant.

[Dot Matrix]

Again, that doesn't justify trying to kill someone. I'm glad we have reasonable and excessive force laws in the UK, I'd hate to live in a place where a law gives you a chance to use your itchy trigger finger to end someones life.

I'm done here.

Who says she had an itchy trigger finger? You act like she sat with her gun by her side just waiting for the first guy to come by her home. Please, enough of the attitude.

Not what I said or meant.

You said it just gives more excuses. But, if you really read through the laws, it doesn't. It just says I can defend myself without the law yielding to the criminals. Stand your ground laws on the other hand, are mostly taken out of context by citizens. There, I would agree with you, but not with Castle Doctrines.

[necroxd]

When you decide to brake the law you set forth a series of event. No matter how big or small the law. You are responsible for what follows as you are the one that created those events. If the situation escalates that's your fault.

[techbeck]

Who says she had an itchy trigger finger? You act like she sat with her gun by her side just waiting for the first guy to come by her home. Please, enough of the attitude.

You said it just gives more excuses. But, if you really read through the laws, it doesn't. It just says I can defend myself without the law yielding to the criminals. Stand your ground laws on the other hand, are mostly taken out of context by citizens. There, I would agree with you, but not with Castle Doctrines.

MAybe I am getting a little confused here. (and more excuses for people to shoot when others are on their property) But people are more itchy with the trigger finger these days with all the shootings going on here. The mom in this case was probably just freaked out and opened fired cuz she was scared. Wouldnt say she had an itchy trigger finger...she just reacted to scary situation for her and her kids when she was confronted face to face with the intruder.

[Dane]

Castle doctrine is stupid, IMO. Shoot first ask questions later if still alive. Just gives people more excuses to shoot someone. Needs to be stricter rules around this especially with the recent shootings as I am sure many people are on edge and trigger happy. Yes, defend your homes if need be but be smart to determine if the person on your property is actually there to do harm, or just lost/confused. (not talking about this thread)

The **** if it is. It is there to protect the home owner. Not some ****ing retard who breaks into a persons house.

Dont want shot? Dont break in. It is not a shoot first ask later. I am tired of people saying that it's honestly stupid. If the person you are using force against does meet the requirements you can claim it.

[Silpheed2K]

Pro-gunners, paranoid, always using the "what if" argument, disgraceful. She didn't give him chance to get out, you don't know what would have happened, though she probably would have shot him in the back if he turned to escape like most pro-gun cowards.

Better than putting him in the ground. I'm not a murderer. Pro-gunners like to use what ifs, I'd like to think he got help with his drugs in prison and came out wanting to change his life.

It's strange how nobody comes back to me when I posted factual information that proves most anti-gun arguments false. A lot of anti-gun arguments are based on "what ifs".

What if someone snaps? What if someone accidentally gets shot? What if a bunch of people get confused and start shooting at each other? etc. When the truth is a shooting is such a rare event that these what ifs are merely dreamed up fiction, made to support a weak argument.

You act as if she did something wrong, when she was going to be the victim, but came out the victor.

To be frank, I made this post to show up again in this thread and I'm still waiting for some life-changing facts about guns that proves gun bans work.

MAybe I am getting a little confused here. (and more excuses for people to shoot when others are on their property) But people are more itchy with the trigger finger these days with all the shootings going on here. The mom in this case was probably just freaked out and opened fired cuz she was scared. Wouldnt say she had an itchy trigger finger...she just reacted to scary situation for her and her kids when she was confronted face to face with the intruder.

You aren't getting confused, you're just retracting on what you said when it was pointed out that it's a load of crap.

[DocM]

Anyone breaking in here is insane; every adult in the place is an experienced shot with a carry permit, and is an archer.

[Rippleman]

i like these stories with happy endings. Those familiar with my anti-gun stance may find that odd, but i hope it can lead to more understanding of some anti-guns stances. This story ended well yes. Just the same as the rare occasion "not wearing a seat belt saved your life" stories that float around. Yes, the gun possibly saved this families life THIS time and I am very happy for them. However, in the end, guns still take more lives than they save.

[SupportGeek]

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.

Wasn't referencing you, just the OP.

How did she have every right to blow his head off in the article it doesn't even say that she gave him a warning, he broke into the house not knowing there was anyone there, that doesn't give someone an automatic right to empty whatever weapon they have into someones head, that's why there are police and judges.

I thought you were a little unstable before, with your wild fears about firearms, but these posts clearly show you are off your rocker.

Its a woman, home with 2 small children, 911 is already called.

Police have been PROVEN time and again to be USELESS in anything but clean up, all police are for is to throw a body bag around your cold corpse and contact your next of kin with the bad news. They are under no legal obligation to protect you.

I don't know if you have children, I'm guessing you don't, it doesn't take much to seriously injure or kill a child, a single punch or kick from an adult is more than enough, someone breaking into your house, then pursuing you to the upstairs closet is an immediate and deadly threat.

Anyone making a decision to defend their life or the life of another (or prevent serious bodily harm) with a firearm, shoots to stop the threat, if thats 1 bullet or 30 it makes no difference. Once the threat is stopped, she no longer has the law on her side to continue firing, a "coup de gras" is basically murder of some degree.

She had every right to shoot, the law is 100% on her side, he threw his own rights away the second he broke in to someone elses home, so to whine that he wasn't put on trial is pointless, he decided his own verdict.

[shakey]

Awesome job.

But to add to the flames.... We do always hear, " The criminals all have guns, so we should.." Where was this criminals gun?

The reality is, not all criminals will have guns, even when they are so easy to get. Make them harder to get, and even less would have them. More regulations will only help curb the actual illegal use of them.

[Anibal P]

This why I always advocate shotguns or at least a .40 or .45 for home defense, the scumbag would be dead and the family won't have to worry about said scumbag suing them for some retarded reason

[SupportGeek]

I can't be the only person who thinks it's wrong to just kill someone because they broke into your home?

You don't seem to understand, no one shoots with intent to kill in self defense, they shoot to stop the threat, if what it takes to stop that threat is the assailants death, then so be it, they took their life in their own hands, and paid the price for not fleeing or dropping to the ground and surrendering the second that firearm was visible.

[SupportGeek]

Awesome job.

But to add to the flames.... We do always hear, " The criminals all have guns, so we should.." Where was this criminals gun?

The reality is, not all criminals will have guns, even when they are so easy to get. Make them harder to get, and even less would have them. More regulations will only help curb the actual illegal use of them.

That's a nice pipe dream, but actually has no basis in reality where the US is concerned, gun control only affects those that choose to follow the law.

[Silpheed2K]

Awesome job.

But to add to the flames.... We do always here, " The criminals all have guns, so we should.." Where was this criminals gun?

The reality is, not all criminals will have guns, even when they are so easy to get. Make them harder to get, and even less would have them. More regulations will only help curb the actual illegal use of them.

The flaw of your argument is that it is based on the assumption that criminals follow the law. Even if laws were very strict, criminals would still have guns. A law doesnt stop you from selling drugs or even buying a gun out of the trunk of somebody's car. There is no background check when buying guns illegally.

Even if criminals couldn't have guns, they'd use other weapons to cause serious harm to people. Such as machetes, an axe, or explosive. The real problem with the stance of any anti-gun argument is that you're trying to legislate to stop violence, when violence has been going on since the beginning of human history and has been proven that it can't be stopped; no matter how many laws have been passed.

The best option you have is to defend yourself; or have an equally or way more powerful weapon as a deterrent/equalizer. Talking generally doesn't work when someone has it in their mind to make you a victim of violence or a crime.

[shakey]

The flaw of your argument is that it is based on the assumption that criminals follow the law. Even if laws were very strict, criminals would still have guns. A law doesnt stop you from selling drugs or even buying a gun out of the trunk of somebody's car. There is no background check when buying guns illegally.

Even if criminals couldn't have guns, they'd use other weapons to cause serious harm to people. Such as machetes, an axe, or explosive. The real problem with the stance of any anti-gun argument is that you're trying to legislate to stop violence, when violence has been going on since the beginning of human history and has been proven that it can't be stopped; no matter how many laws have been passed.

The best option you have is to defend yourself; or have an equally or way more powerful weapon as a deterrent/equalizer. Talking generally doesn't work when someone has it in their mind to make you a victim of violence or a crime.

So then why did this criminal, who doesn't follow the law, not have a gun?

Sorry, reality is, you don't know jack about what regulations can actually do. Look at other nations that are doing better than America, and you will see it works.

You want a equal way to defend yourself? Then, this woman should go to jail. The criminal only had a crowbar. Don't need a gun to defend against that. Another crowbar would be just as effective right?

Being scared doesnt give you a reason to have deadly force. Be a man, and stop thinking that everyone is out to get you, and that everyone will be armed. This criminal wasn't. Many aren't. Make it harder to get, guns become more expensive, then only big time mobsters would be able to afford them really. It's called supply and demand. Learn basic economics, and you would understand such things.

Oh, and if you are going to say something is proven, please, provide that proof. I've seen nothing show that it can't be stopped, but many nations have already shown that it can and does work when it is regulated. Europe, Australia..... I could go on, but I'd like for you to share your proof.

That's a nice pipe dream, but actually has no basis in reality where the US is concerned, gun control only affects those that choose to follow the law.

It hasn't been tried here... so how can you say that? Please provide proof to your claims.

[linsook]

So then why did this criminal, who doesn't follow the law, have a gun?

Sorry, reality is, you don't know jack about what regulations can actually do. Look at other nations that are doing better than America, and you will see it works.

You want a equal way to defend yourself? Then, this woman should go to jail. The criminal only had a crowbar. Don't need a gun to defend against that. Another crowbar would be just as effective right?

Being scared doesnt give you a reason to have deadly force. Be a man, and stop thinking that everyone is out to get you, and that everyone will be armed. This criminal wasn't. Many aren't. Make it harder to get, guns become more expensive, then only big time mobsters would be able to afford them really. It's called supply and demand. Learn basic economics, and you would understand such things.

Oh, and if you are going to say something is proven, please, provide that proof. I've seen nothing show that it can't be stopped, but many nations have already shown that it can and does work when it is regulated. Europe, Australia..... I could go on, but I'd like for you to share your proof.

his proof is from a chainmail that dates back to 2008 or further that because of gun control, genocide happened.

[macrosslover]

So then why did this criminal, who doesn't follow the law, not have a gun?

Sorry, reality is, you don't know jack about what regulations can actually do. Look at other nations that are doing better than America, and you will see it works.

You want a equal way to defend yourself? Then, this woman should go to jail. The criminal only had a crowbar. Don't need a gun to defend against that. Another crowbar would be just as effective right?

Being scared doesnt give you a reason to have deadly force. Be a man, and stop thinking that everyone is out to get you, and that everyone will be armed. This criminal wasn't. Many aren't. Make it harder to get, guns become more expensive, then only big time mobsters would be able to afford them really. It's called supply and demand. Learn basic economics, and you would understand such things.

Oh, and if you are going to say something is proven, please, provide that proof. I've seen nothing show that it can't be stopped, but many nations have already shown that it can and does work when it is regulated. Europe, Australia..... I could go on, but I'd like for you to share your proof.

It hasn't been tried here... so how can you say that? Please provide proof to your claims.

http://www.foxnews.c...n-gun-violence/

Doesn't seem to be working for Chicago. Tough gun laws might work in a country where guns were always regulated, but in a country like America where guns have been apart of the culture for more than 200 years, they are too ingrained and rooted into society for gun laws to make a difference. Even if they passed laws today saying all guns with high cap clips are banned, they'll likely have an exemption for guns that were made before the ban. Even if they asked every citizen to turn in your guns willingly, who do you think would actually abide with that. The fact is guns were never disappear from America, period.

[shakey]

http://www.foxnews.c...n-gun-violence/

Doesn't seem to be working for Chicago. Tough gun laws might work in a country where guns were always regulated, but in a country like America where guns have been apart of the culture for more than 200 years, they are too ingrained and rooted into society for gun laws to make a difference. Even if they passed laws today saying all guns with high cap clips are banned, they'll likely have an exemption for guns that were made before the ban. Even if they asked every citizen to turn in your guns willingly, who do you think would actually abide with that. The fact is guns were never disappear from America, period.

Hard to make something work for a whole nation when you only pick 1 little city. It's got to be a nation wide thing. Can't make it so they just have to cross a border that isn't even checked or secure.

The fact is, you don't know it. It hasn't been done. So please, don't say something is fact when actually, it's an opinion based off of something that doesn't even aim at solving the problem.

If you think that just because its been around too long is a reason to keep it, that's stupid. Really stupid..... so I'd like to direct you to my sig.

Guns aren't a exclusive thing to America. If it was really all that bad, why don't the nations that have regulations on them, have a big problem with illegal gun use? Oh thats right, they don't. Unless you think Americans are all a bunch of savages , or are just surrounded by savages, I see no reason why we can't follow in the steps of all the other 1st world nations. We have proof it works in other nations, all it takes is trying something. Too many ******* in America though it seems... cats that is.

[Lamp0]

TheLegendOfMart, I absolutely understand where you are coming from. I think it's pretty bizarre how many have responded to you in this thread. Unfortunately these topics seem to demonstrate a sickening lack of empathy.

I don't think what the women did was wrong, considering her children were there, she was undoubtedly scared. Though I wouldn't have been such a rush to unload into a burglars, but I can certainly understand it.

Slipheed2K, I think the arguments you present are comparatively irrelevant. Can you really argue that a wide availability of military grade fire arms & an obsessive & paranoid sub culture is healthy?

I think whether or not gun controls would help is really side stepping the real issue. One could put spree killings(& murders in general i guess) down to social and communital dysfunction. Certainly guns aren't helping such societies, but again that's just the shell of the issue.