I am just glad she iis safe along, with her baby
I am just glad she iis safe along, with her baby
Shot 5 times in the face. 5 times.
And still gets up, runs to his car and drives into a wooded area? Wow.
Good for her.
But I think this points out the need that criminals carry courtesy firearms for their intended victims.
But this was probably some deprived youth who didn't understand the rules: break into a house and get shot.
Have mixed feelings about guns, but I am glad the mother and her baby is safe.
Instantly shot him 5 times in the head and neck? Yeah, sounds like she was trying to protect herself. Nah, she was trying to kill the guy. Most burglars would run a mile if you pointed a gun at them whilst they were trying to rob you, even more than that will NOT burgle you if you let them know that you are in, instead of hiding, giving the impression that the home is empty.
She could have waited for him to raise a hand, or see if actually he'd flee, but no, shoot first, think later.
Oh and yeah, just to make sure that he heeds the warning, shoot 5 times in the head so he knows you mean business. That outta give him a chance to get lost....if he, like this guy, was very lucky.
Oh and that mugshot of his in the article, do you see any bullet wounds there? No. Clearly shows this wasn't his first rodeo.
Well i'm just pointing out he had a criminal record already.
I'm not saying this is true, of course, just that this kind of incident, where people are empowered to use deadly force, rather than reasonable force, which might see an obligation NOT to shoot, unless an attack was imminent, which allows the bad guys a chance to back down before coming to harm, can lead to abuse. And its not ok even if it is against a criminal, unless absolutely necessary.
This woman could of, having rang her husband, rung the police FIRST. She also could have waited for him to break in, standing in the hall way with some distance between her and him. She could have not shot him as soon as he opened the closet door, and she didn't really have to shoot 5 times, once or twice, sure, three times MAYBE, but 5 times. She wasn't giving him the chance to survive whilst she was in shooting mode.
And we know from the article, that once he broke in, he started ransacking the home. That suggests a burglary, nothing more sinister. She should have let him know she was at home. Its not like we can say he knew anybody was, 9yr olds after all don't make noise 24/7. The whole thing could have been avoided from the start in all liklihood. Instead, we have a guy fighting for survival because he is on the wrong side of the track. That could be argued as a risk of engaging in crime, but then criminals can't guage how irrational people may be. This womans actions appear a little irrational to me.
I'm just certain that somebody else in that position will have no need to shoot their weapon, but they just WILL, deliberately, knowing they have all the protection of the law to get away with it. Vigilantism you know.
Again, not saying this woman was one of those. But her case could be identical to someone else in her shoes who happens to be a vindictive sort who will deliberately refrain from nipping the incident in the bud before they get the opportunity to exact their own brand of justice.
He broke into her house using a crowbar and began ransacking her home. Her husband called 911 and the mother and two children hid in an upstairs closet. When he opened the closet door, she did what any frightened person, not knowing if the intruder was armed or not, might do. She shot him. When he lay on the floor, she told him to stay there, she did not fire again, but he ran off. Again, she did not fire. She let him escape. She was not looking to shoot anyone on that day, but he was looking to get shot.
The mother and children are likely to be more traumatized than the criminal. She was only trying to protect her children, she was not looking for vigilante justice.
Last edited by sixthson; January 10th, 2013 at 10:46 AM.
Everyone wants to be heard. No one wants to listen.
The rules, as mitch calls them, are there for the homeowner to protect themselves against an intruder. The intruder knew the risks when he broke into the house. Maybe she should have hit him over the head with a baseball ball and killed him or rendered him permanently brain damaged? Or maybe she should have stabbed him with a kitchen knife?
She could have waited, I guess, to see if he was a rapist or murderer before doing anything, too.
This "certain individual" that you so casually dismiss was in fear of her life. She felt compelled to act to protect her own.
What compelled the intruder to do what he did? Drugs? Lust? Greed?
Everyone wants to be heard. No one wants to listen.
Its all very well arguing that a criminal knows the rules, but what the criminal does not necessarily know, in all liklihood does not in fact, is whether a home which they scout turns out to have either a hidden occupant in a closet, when they knocked and repeatedly rung the doorbell to assume that because there was no answer, it was a safe bet to enter, or that b) does the home even have guns within them.
The criminal is not taking a risk by breaking in to any home, he is taking a risk that he breaks into the home of an irrational, or vindictive character that truly might make crime NOT pay. Most people in ordinary circumstances wouldn't take the risk, but then most people are not unemployed or on drugs or desperate enough to do it.
I've heard your defense of the victimizers here more than once. I prefer to think of the victim.
Everyone wants to be heard. No one wants to listen.
She showed restraint: only 5 shots fired.
I completely agree that there needs to be MUCH stricter gun control in America and i've said exactly that in recent posts on the topic. However, until that happens the 'rules' of the game are somewhat that burglary is fairly high stakes right now as the robbers know the occupants are likely to be armed and because of this the burglars are also likely to be armed and the occupants are also aware of that. The central problem is the ease of access of guns, however that isn't going to be fixed anytime soon and until then it affects how everyone reacts in a given situation.
In the UK burglaries are somewhat different. I used to work in the claims dept of an insurance company and of the theft claims I dealt with 9 times out of 10 they were very minor sorts of incidents. I rarely saw a full on steal the family silver, take everything of value kind of crime. It was always the same story, the occupant would leave a handbag or mobile phone or wallet or something like this on display often on a window sill and the burglar would smash, grab (or reach through an opened window) and then leg it with 1 or 2 items.
Anyway what i'm trying to say is this, because of the often petit nature of the UK burglaries it's extremely rare for a robber here to attack and seriously injure the occupant and it's even rarer for the occupant to attack and seriously injure the intruder, this changes the dynamic of the crime to a large degree. I would speculate given the frequency of these kind of killings that burglary in America is carried out by far more dangerous criminals, and the penalty if caught also seems to be far harsher than what burglars in the UK receive. Because of this I think it justifies a more aggressive approach to self defence. Especially when the occupants are women and young children. Hesitating to react could have cost this woman and her children their lives.
If a would be burglar was the fairly harmless just need a few dollars for their next fix then burglary in America isn't the way to do it, they can go shoplift some shit from Walmart. You have to be pretty fucking hardcore to carry out a home invasion in a country that owns over 200 million privately-owned firearms.
Guns do not prevent burglaries from occurring, so the gun risk is no threat, so long as, that is, that the burglar has got his calculations right. Nobody home, nobody to catch him.
I just can't see there being a case that burglars in the USA are motivated any differently to burglars anywhere else.
I remember reading an NRA article about guns being used for self defence. In 90% of the cases, it was preventing a burglary. Of those cases, 50% of burglars were unarmed, which kind of dismisses the idea that burglars are more likely to take a weapon just because homeowners may have them. I'd argue that an armed intruder was MORE likely to suffer the worst at the hands of a startled homeowner, so its in their own interest not to be too threatening in their crime. Indeed of the other 50% who were armed, only 10% had a firearm, the rest were using knives or their crowbar, or baseball bat etc as the weapon.
The problem is that there is a very real possibility that a burglar will have a gun. There is also a very real possibility the homeowner will have a gun, put these two elements together and it creates a potential 'whoever shoots the other first wins' scenario. It's a dreadful situation but I don't think you can criticise that woman for what she did. The system is at fault.
If that was my wife with my children in that situation I wouldn't want her to hesitate and take the risk, there's just too many horror stories of headcases shooting innocent people at the moment. Also the burglar could have calmly rung the doorbell with a smile on his face and said 'excuse me mam would you be interested in buying xxxxx' if anyone answered the door. Instead he spammed the doorbell repeatedly and banged on the door with a crowbar and made a right noise by all accounts. His actions frightened the life out of her and caused her to run upstairs with her children in her arms and hide in the closet. He created a volatile and dangerous situation, he is to blame, not her.
You also need to bare in mind the US legal system is somewhat different to ours. Because of the '3 strikes and your out' (mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole) on a third felony conviction there are thousands of criminals who face a potential life sentence so will go to the most extreme lengths to avoid being caught, including killing any witnesses as there is a 'nothing to lose' mentality as long as the state doesn't have the death penalty. Also America has some of the most barbaric prison conditions for a western country, and very harsh sentences, it's not exactly Norway. This serves as a catalyst for desperate people take desperate measures. The entire system is completely absurd. Guns readily available, and a strong motivator for using them.
What she should have done is yell through the door 'i'm inside and i'm armed and the police are on the way.' That would definitely have been the best approach and would have probably scared him off. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though, when put in these terrifying situations civilians will not always make all the right choices, they aren't professionals and this is why American citizens shouldn't have firearms for 'defensive' reasons. Guns should only be in the hands of trained professionals.
I feel the responsibility lies with the legal system which creates the problem.
Yes she was scared, but she was also quite irrational in her behaviour. She wasn't in the kind of danger that she thought she was, and her reactions esculated the situation.
You are quite right about the penal system in the states, its punishments are exceptionally excessive, without being inhumane fortunately, compared to other countries.
I think the three strikes policy is absolutely absurd, god help you if you suffer kleptomania. You'll be yo-yoing in and out of jail.
Hmmm, i hear ya. But i can't understand it too well, since if the guns were banned, she would be in no strategically different position then, than she would be if she just waited a moment before shooting at the first opportunity. She could have not fired so quick, she could have not fired continually, not at the face etc etc. A man is now fighting for his life, why should i care about him, well i don't particularly. I was 8yrs old when my family home was burgled just 2 days after my birthday, my best present which i played morning til night was stolen with other things. I hate thieves. I also happen to understand a little about the motivation aspect though. I think criminals, as scum as they are, still need to be treated as fairly and justly as possible.I agree she didn't handle the situation as well as she could have done and I see it as more reason to restrict the sale of guns, rather than condemn her actions. As for what danger she was in, well you can't possibly say she wasn't in as much danger as she thought. We have no idea what he would have done to her or her children if she had given him the chance. I firmly believe that the lives of her children are not worth gambling over some low life piece of shit like this.
I think Mitchymo's argument illustrates perfectly my problem with all of the laws that stretch to include these "you have the right to use lethal force" factors outside of the home, such as the problematic laws in Florida which have already resulted in what appears to be on the part of the shooters a legitimate belief that the law empowered them to do this simply based on their biases or fears or perceptions of aggression, particularly regarding black people.
Not relevant to the story in question though, I admit.
This Thread is for UK comments only. They know all.
And it's getting tiresome.
Last edited by palbert; January 10th, 2013 at 03:54 PM.
What a way to remain ignorant Palbert, by dismissing foreign perspectives.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-intruder?liteThe family had fled through three locked doors, into a bathroom and then to an upstairs crawl space, but the intruder busted the doors open to stalk the family, police said.
Little bit more than a burglary.
Yes, this is where the abuse of the right can come into play.There's a terrible issue in America where people sometimes feel they are justified to shoot someone because they are trying to steal from them. That's absurd and wrong, nobody deserves to die for the sake of a flat screen TV and an iPod.
The worst case i heard, was a bar brawl, where two guys got into a fight, it got broken up, and the two guys went off. One guy went on foot, the other got into his car. The guy in the car spotted the guy on foot, so pulled alongside him and restarted the argument. He wound his window down and when things got heated, the guy on foot leaned into the car to grab the guy, where he pulled out a gun and shot. He used self defence as an argument, he wasn't even taken to court. Justifiable homicide. Yet it was he who restarted the argument, it was he who was armed, it was the other guy who had been hurt, nay killed, nay murdered. But he got away with it. Any shrewd killer in the US can set up an incident, claim self defence and get away with it. Forces criminal investigators to work miracles to get justice done where it is deserved sometimes, and it stinks.
Good thing you have Miss Marple.
There's abit to this story that just sounds weird. I actually know a burgular (no it's not me). If a burgular goes through the time to make sure nobody's home, he dosen't want confrontation. He certainly wouldn't stalk them through multiple locked doors.
I'm willing to bet he dosen't have a drug addiction, (he may use recreationaly) or a gambling addiction. If he had either, he wouldn't have the SUV he drove there with.
The SUV's another thing, if you're gonna' hit a place that's desolate, you don't use your own car. Even if you're discrete, there are a million unknown variables.
With my exposure to these types of things, this guy's an amatuer. And the conversation of the couple??.....something just seems hoakey.
Or...maybe I'm becoming a cospiracy nut in my old age.
Don't care to make or state my specific opinion on either side because it will just end in the usual holier than though "you're wrong and I'm right" banter - and because I don't really care what anyone else thinks of my opinion.... it's mine and I'll have it, defend it and stand behind it, regardless of what others feel about it. I know it, I don't have to say it.
I will say this -- when someone you don't know and did not invite into your home busts through your private defenses and into your personal space and pursues you and your family, children, loved ones, etc. like a crazed animal through your house, apt, flat, loft, condo, trailer or whatever you reside in, THEN you can come back and talk about what you'd do or what you did and give advice to others who might find themselves in the same situation.
If you weren't there then you don't know, and you have no idea what you would do or say before, during or after.
Remember, assumptions make an ass out of YOU.
Now, flame away .... lol
Last edited by MattClaimer; January 11th, 2013 at 01:55 AM.
Remember that the whole thing started by agressive knocking on the door and then furiously pressing the doorbell.
I think that pretty much tells something about the mental state of out criminal. Mother worried that she or her kids may get hurt. She made sure that his husband knows about this. 911 was called. She has already done something to stop the incident from happening, but help didn't arrive in time.
So she hid the kids and took a gun, preparing for the worst. Guy opened closet, got shot in the face.
And that's it. The worst possible outcome is already avoided by this. And, yeah, she could have told the guy to back the fuck off pointing a weapon to his head, but she didn't. Nobody should expect this from another person. People act differently.
Even is she wanted to shoot him in the face as a random act of violence for fun (which she didn't), I would take her side, because she avoided the problems that this guy would have caused to her and her family.
And note this: It doesn't matter if she found any sort of joy in shooting the guy in the face. The thing that matters is that if someone violates your rights and possibly puts your safety and life at risk, you have the right to protect yourself. Even if you enjoy it.
When are we going to stop protecting the criminals? He was a criminal. Crimes have risks. By taking part in criminal activity, you accept the risks by your actions.
And criminals can shut the fuck up about their rights to health and life and safety. All their life is about trespassing those same rights of other people, without taking responsibility for their deeds.
Non-criminal person is ALWAYS more important than criminal person PERIOD.
Last edited by Coward92; January 11th, 2013 at 03:05 AM.
This is fantasy, and I don't mean the news story. Plenty of us are against guns proliferating, but this is sadly one of the times when it was clearly justified. Without the gun, we would likely be reading of the horror of a Georgia tragedy that entailed a man getting a call from his wife, and then arriving home to find her and the daughters dead, possibly bludgeoned to death.
The implication is the man was crazed, but he may have only been a burglar. In the end, it matters not, as home invasion is at the height of violent crime, and this is a textbook case of the reason why.
Contrary to my friend Mitchymo's arguments, there is no reasonable expectation of restraint in an out-of-control violent situation. The homeowner is NOT a trained policeman, even if possibly trained in firearm use, and has no onus of reasonable force restraint that a policeman does. Further, the woman is not an actress from a crime drama, and well she knew it. She had no way of knowing what was happening, and was just plain smart to take all the actions she did. Her natural instinct was to reach out to her mate, which is why he is her life mate. She next withdrew, also a smart act. Finally, she acted without hesitation when it likely saved her act. At the proximity which she was, a moment's hesitation could see the gun wrested from her, and cost her three lives.
I won't pass judgment on the worth or merit of the intruder. If he was simply a thief, then his disregard for humanity finally almost cost him his life. If he was mentally ill, then he was so far past the acceptable norm that he may not be one of the ones who make it in our society and for valid if tragic reasons.
And the dismissive tone of mentioning jewelry as the cost of letting a man go unrepelled is both a distraction and reductionist. If this was about burglary, and that is not established, then homes, cars, possessions are not just trinkets or markers of status. They represent what humans spent the largest amount of time of their lives securing. We can disregard their values when they are not our own (Hummers, conspicuous consumption, etc.) but that is highly subjective. A diamond necklace is not necessarily a bauble from the store down the street, as it may rather be an inheritance from a loving grandmother, etc. At any rate, there is no social or moral imperative for a person to roll over and allow a life's possessions to be just taken to buy a junkie his next high.
There is no "hurray" here for anyone, only a sigh of relief that it did not end worse. There is no social nor legal condemnation for this lady. The only criticism I can proffer is that they didn't landscape the home.
Last edited by Hard-up1; January 11th, 2013 at 05:51 AM.
And if she had been a trained policeman, she would have done what trained policemen are trained to do--shoot to kill.
Like Jason said, she trusted the counsel of her husband who told her to shoot, shoot, shoot. I would have done the same thing...do whatever it takes to survive because she can't know the mind of the intruder.
Even if it is true that only 10% of burglars are armed, had she waited until she found out if he was armed, it would have been too late.
Also, if he actually meant them no harm, why did he not run away when he became aware that there were people in the house.
She deserves a medal.
Everyone wants to be heard. No one wants to listen.
In the link you posted, it came across as being far more desperate a situation than the either misinformed or tempered article that was first posted in this thread.
Perhaps if all news reports recounted the same events, there wouldn't be any confusion over the severity of the incident.
The OP article implies burglary, the article you posted implies intent to harm. Naturally, any readers response is going to differ accordingly, if they happen to be of the 'reasonable' mentality.
I don't hold anything against this woman under the circumstances that she was in. That does not however change my opinion on my feeling that she over-reacted.
The news report I watched said that he intruder chased one of her 9 year old twins up the stairs when he saw them, and then pursued them through a series of locked doors into the attic where they were hiding. So consider that when saying that the better alternative would have been to let him know she was home and armed, and then let me know what you would have done when he came in that crawl space.