Hardcore Til I Die Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rohdekill Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. SupportGeek, trag3dy, psmoked and 4 others 7 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. 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. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Matrix Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456789A Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Must have been a pea shooter if he got hit in the face and neck 5 times and was able to drive away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DConnell Member Posted January 6, 2013 Member Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted January 6, 2013 Global Moderator Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. Lord Method Man and psmoked 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 That's what homeowners insurance is for. Not to mentionthat on conviction the perp could be assessed damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingCracker Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rk_b0mb Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Get 'em. She had every right to to defend herself and her children. psmoked, DConnell, Dot Matrix and 3 others 6 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlintyV Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 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 :rolleyes: which you say exists. ZakO 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagjohn Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 There's nothing wrong with protecting yourself/family but who goes for the head first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User6060 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 how did she shot him 5 times from point blank and still have him able to get "away" shes not that great a shot. lucky she didnt hit someone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Method Man Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Love the Monday-morning quarterbacking by some of you really, really smart people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted January 6, 2013 Global Moderator Share Posted January 6, 2013 There's nothing wrong with protecting yourself/family but who goes for the head first? A panicked stricken person? I mean really....neither you or I were there nor do we know how we would have reacted under that particular situation. how did she shot him 5 times from point blank and still have him able to get "away" shes not that great a shot. lucky she didnt hit someone else Who else would she have hit in her house? The twins were with her...it isn't as if she shot in all directions. I think 4 out of 5 shots to the face is a pretty good group anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*RedBull* Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 There's nothing wrong with protecting yourself/family but who goes for the head first? Head shots in a panic is natural. Shooting the body ensures you hit vital parts but the intruder could have a bullet proof vest. Close range natural to point at the face. how did she shot him 5 times from point blank and still have him able to get "away" shes not that great a shot. lucky she didnt hit someone else Who else could she have hit? The pizza delivery girl across the street? Jim K and psmoked 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 cops have extensive training and backup and bullet proof vests. They are paid to put their lives on the line. This woman is a citizen with children in the house. It's not even nearly the same situation. Shoot to kill is the best solution. which is why this anti 2nd amendment issue is absolutely ludicrous. suppose she was forced to turn the .38 in? we'd have one woman and several dead children.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dot Matrix Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 which is why this anti 2nd amendment issue is absolutely ludicrous. suppose she was forced to turn the .38 in? we'd have one woman and several dead children.. The US isn't going to ban firearms. Not sure where this silliness is coming from, but those who think that could happen are living in a fantasy land. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooko22 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 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. Oh and I agree with ya but are you certain he was there to do them harm? Were you there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techbeck Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 which is why this anti 2nd amendment issue is absolutely ludicrous. suppose she was forced to turn the .38 in? we'd have one woman and several dead children.. Not going to happen. Going to be stricter laws but the fed knows better than to try and take guns away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Still, what that woman did was overkill. overkill? is that really the word you want to choose or are you self-trolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyond Godlike Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Its amazing seeing the idiotic arguments being used by the pro-gun people. The guy implying it was a first step to the slaughter of american citizens was just...inbred. I never understand the hunting thing either, why is it considered so masculine...hiding in a bush and shooting an animal minding its own business. Maybe they use fake masculinity to make up for intelligence in the south..but wow...wrestle it with your bear hands if you wanna be a man, then you only need a knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 So let me get this straight...some guy crowbars his way into a house and some of you are more worried about why the person who lived in the house (with children) aimed for the face instead of presumably the hands or feet? Perhaps she ought to be jailed as a result of her recklessness? Somebody said "monday morning quarterbacks" earlier. I'll call it "sluggish of mind". Complete lack of logic from some posters on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts