If this was my daughter, I'd be proud of her!

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 12:50am

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

and if they hadn't had knives but instead had a gun or two of their own? if she had shouted out, its not unlikely that they could have just started shooting at the sound of her voice?

Her moving the couch to barricade the door didn't give it away that she was inside?

remember, these were drug addicts wanting to steal pills - not exactly in a rational frame of mind.

Yeah, i've heard they like to make human sacrifices to the devil when high.

stupidusername · 07-01-2012 12:51am

hondasam wrote: »

Look at the pic, it is a typo in that piece. baby is 3 mths. did you stop reading there?

I read what was quoted, yeah.

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 12:51am

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

so you agree they were prepared to use a little bit of violence, yeah?

Yeah prepared to threaten with a knife. You guys are saying they definitely intend to use it on her and the poor little helpless baby...big difference.

CHRIS JERICHO · 07-01-2012 12:53am

Brillant give this girl a medal she deserves it

Raging_Ninja · 07-01-2012 12:55am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Her moving the couch to barricade the door didn't give it away that she was inside?

make up your mind. if they saw the couch acting as a barricade then they knew somebody was home and therefore a warning wasn't necessary. its not much of a leap to therefore reason out they intended to use at least a bit more violence to get what they wanted.

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Yeah prepared to threaten with a knife. You guys are saying they definitely intend to use it on her and the poor little helpless baby...big difference.

sure, everything always goes exactly the way people plan. they only brought the knife to 'scare' her.

fact is, she didn't know why they brought weapons with them. therefore she had to act according to what they were capable of doing to her and her baby. just because she saw one weapon (a knife) doesn't mean they couldn't have had more weapons on them.

opinion guy · 07-01-2012 12:58am

Okay

I stumbled on this earlier and wasn't going to post it because it seems quite speculative:
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/01/sarah-shepard-mckinley-more-to-the-story-kenny-mckinley-family-member-suspects-so/

But on that is a link the Sarah McKinley's Facebook page under her maiden name Sarah Shepard which is open access:<SNIP> snipping this myself as I don't like posting direct links to people's facebook pages - you can get it off maggiesnotebook.com

Unfotunately I looked at it and saw a post on Jan 1st after the shooting that just disturbed me. (Also the fact that I could access such info facebook disturbs me - facebook is evil)

Anyhow - why am I posting it now ?

Because of this interview:

battries not included wrote: »

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1370815297001/young-mother-kills-home-intruder

To my mind - the story given on the facebook page and the story given in this interview have several inconsistencies.

Also - she says she was 22 feet away in the interview. a) is the house that big ? b) on fb she claims to have aimed for the side of his head and hit him in the head. From 22 feet away ???????:eek: Thats crack shot stuff yet she claims to have only fired the gun once before on the interview(Manic Moran and Mak - can you guys comment on that ?)

Anyhow - I simply feel sick now thinking about this regardless of whether it was justified or not. It was a partially entertaining, partially disturbing debate to me earlier. I was to some extent playing devils advocate with my argument at the start as well as being curious, but as its gone on I developed genuine doubts about the story. Now, having seen her facebook and read her words afterwords, now its all too real to me to be trying and score points on an internet forum and I don't want to know details anymore. It just disturbs me for various reasons. Sickening.

I'm out.

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 1:00am

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

make up your mind. if they saw the couch acting as a barricade then they knew somebody was home and therefore a warning wasn't necessary. its not much of a leap to therefore reason out they intended to use at least a bit more violence to get what they wanted.

Yeah cause a barricaded door means some batsh*t crazy teen mom is inside taking aim with a shotgun. I better not enter and get my fix.

sure, everything always goes exactly the way people plan. they only brought the knife to 'scare' her.

No no, you are right, I really give up arguing with you people. Like CHRIS JERICHO said, give the girl a metal. I think I will have better luck convincing a christian that there's no god.

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 1:06am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why do you think she needs to warn them ? Would you be on a thread saying that they should have warned her ? No ?

Cause that's what people do instead of just shooting someone. That's why if she didn't consider warning them then the shooting in my eyes are very excessive. Look, can't people just admit that maybe...just maybe she didn't make the best decision just like other parts of her life? And that if she's not a teen mom with a baby you would agree with me?

Then you are biased.

No I am not. You on the other hand are super biased towards gunning that intruder down because she's seen as a vulnerable teen mom.

100% false. Even if she weren't a teen or a mom I'd be in favour of her dealing with the scum with the knife the same way.

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 1:08am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

The knife was just to threaten the girl for drugs?

"just to" ? Seriously ? And you say that you're not biased in their favour and defending their despicable choices ?

Since when is threatening with a knife acceptable ?

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 1:10am

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Sara_McKinley_41.jpg
Wait, my bad, that looks to be the niece's fb update. Her name is sara instead of Sarah

Witcher · 07-01-2012 1:11am

opinion guy wrote: »

on fb she claims to have aimed for the side of his head and hit him in the head. From 22 feet away ???????:eek: Thats crack shot stuff yet she claims to have only fired the gun once before on the interview

Are you aware of how a shotgun patterns when it is fired? It fires multiple projectiles thus increasing the chances of a hit, it's not exactly a 'crack shot'.

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 1:11am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"just to" ? Seriously ? And you say that you're not biased in their favour and defending their despicable choices ?

Since when is threatening with a knife acceptable ?

It's not...the only answer is....DEATH...(on your side now buddy...given up)

Raging_Ninja · 07-01-2012 1:13am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Sara_McKinley_41.jpgHer husband is also her uncle? :eek:

No. The widow is Sarah Shepard McKinley. The husband had a niece named Sara McKinley. The wife and the niece are two different people.

stupidusername · 07-01-2012 1:13am

opinion guy wrote: »

Okay

I stumbled on this earlier and wasn't going to post it because it seems quite speculative:
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/01/sarah-shepard-mckinley-more-to-the-story-kenny-mckinley-family-member-suspects-so/

But on that is a link the Sarah McKinley's Facebook page under her maiden name Sarah Shepard which is open access:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1346723533&sk=wall

Unfotunately I looked at it and saw a post on Jan 1st after the shooting that just disturbed me. (Also the fact that I could access such info facebook disturbs me - facebook is evil)

Anyhow - why am I posting it now ?

Because of this interview:

To my mind - the story given on the facebook page and the story given in this interview have several inconsistencies.

Also - she says she was 22 feet away in the interview. a) is the house that big ? b) on fb she claims to have aimed for the side of his head and hit him in the head. From 22 feet away ???????:eek: Thats crack shot stuff yet she claims to have only fired the gun once before on the interview(Manic Moran and Mak - can you guys comment on that ?)

Also, she's written about the other guy fleeing after he heard shots. not one shot. shots.

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 1:15am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"just to" ? Seriously ? And you say that you're not biased in their favour and defending their despicable choices ?

Since when is threatening with a knife acceptable ?

It's not...the only answer is....DEATH...(on your side now buddy...given up)

No. The other answer is DON'T BREAK INTO HOUSES! Jesus you're blinkered!

Raging_Ninja · 07-01-2012 1:17am

stupidusername wrote: »

Also, she's written about the other guy fleeing after he heard shots. not one shot. shots.

when the police gave their statement, they said the dead man had one gunshot wound. obviously, if there was more than one shot fired, the others must have missed.

stupidusername · 07-01-2012 1:18am

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

she said she fired two shots. when the police gave their statement, they said the dead man had one gunshot wound. obviously, one shot missed while the other hit.

ok so

hondasam · 07-01-2012 1:20am

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sarah%20mckinley%20husband%20is%20her%20unce&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maggiesnotebook.com%2F2012%2F01%2Fsarah-shepard-mckinley-more-to-the-story-kenny-mckinley-family-member-suspects-so%2F&ei=mI8HT9SLNcOXhQezrODCCQ&usg=AFQjCNGm45SGR0u482nP5UxzvtXWtuxknA

here is some more info,

Raging_Ninja · 07-01-2012 1:24am

stupidusername wrote: »

ok so

made a mistake, article doesn't say how many shots were fired, only how many times the criminal was shot (once).

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 1:25am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. The other answer is DON'T BREAK INTO HOUSES! Jesus you're blinkered!

OK, i am sorry....i get it now. Do not break into houses...the punishment...is....(wait for it)...DEATH!

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 1:28am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. The other answer is DON'T BREAK INTO HOUSES! Jesus you're blinkered!

OK, i am sorry....i get it now. Do not break into houses...the punishment...is....(wait for it)...DEATH!

The punishment is at the discretion of the owner of the house. And you left out the fact that the thugs were armed. Oh - and the fact that they were armed ("just to") threaten the girl, so it's not just the breakin. Don't threaten people with knives either. Or kill their dogs.

No breakin = no DEATH

But yeah - you're improving now that you realise that there are 2 choices rather than just the one you claimed earlier.

You'll get there eventually.

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 1:37am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The punishment is at the discretion of the owner of the house. And you left out the fact that the thugs were armed. Oh - and the fact that they were armed ("just to") threaten the girl, so it's not just the breakin. Don't threaten people with knives either.

Ok, it seems like a lot of things can get me killed in a hick town.

Or kill their dogs.

They might have poisoned them. She shot the dogs.

No breakin = no DEATH

Gotchas.

But yeah - you're improving now that you realise that there are 2 choices rather than just the one you claimed earlier.

You'll get there eventually.

Thanks bud

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 1:46am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The punishment is at the discretion of the owner of the house. And you left out the fact that the thugs were armed. Oh - and the fact that they were armed ("just to") threaten the girl, so it's not just the breakin. Don't threaten people with knives either.

Ok, it seems like a lot of things can get me killed in a hick town.

Depends! Thankfully they're all things that you can easily choose not to do.....in fact, thankfully they're all things that don't even enter decent people's heads, so if you're decent then no, there aren't lots of things that can get you killed.....

..... unless you count sitting in your own house minding your own business only to be confronted by scum breaking in your door....and thanks to this lady that chance has decreased too.

Icyseanfitz · 07-01-2012 2:01am

why does anyone care how many shots she fired

these two pissheads had all this clinically planned out (kill dogs..check, scout house..check, spend 28 minutes breaking down door..check, 12 inch long knife..check, backup..check) they deserve everything they got,

if i had a 3 month old kid in a house being attacked by scum, the last thing i would be worried about is their rights

Biggins · 07-01-2012 2:36am

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

why does anyone care how many shots she fired these two pissheads had all this clinically planned out (kill dogs..check, scout house..check, spend 28 minutes breaking down door..check, 12 inch long knife..check, backup..check) they deserve everything they got,

if i had a 3 month old kid in a house being attacked by scum, the last thing i would be worried about is their rights

Indeed.

What we have have here is few (very few) folk that have all these theories, ideas of what she should have done, what she shouldn't have done, a lot of theories/speculation about her life (of which NO - I say again - NO proof has been gathered by us, or the police whom are not charging her with anything.

So lets look at the facts as its possibly known.

1. The girl was at home with her three MONTH old baby.

2. Two men called to the home and wanted in.

3. They were not going away.

4. One, its now known for sure brought a weapon.

5. They decided for 28 minutes to try getting in - front and back.

6. There was a teen girl inside that picked up the phone and dialled 911.

7. The entire event was then recorded as it was happening LIVE!

8. The teen asked not once but twice as to if it was ok to shoot!

9. She was advised to do so ONLY if they cross the threshold! She followed this clear advice.

10. For the further 28 minutes that they tried breaking in - not ONCE did they ever give up and leave!

11. With one man breaking in at the back door and another now actually coming in through the front door, when he entered, moving aside the sofa that was pushed up against the front door (NOTE THIS: if he was breaking in and noticed there was a further weight against the door - he HAD to have known that there was at least someone in the home - and STILL he entered with his weapon!), he finally entered and from her position inside she shot at the intruder! ABOVE the legs because the sofa was covering his lower parts!

12. She had been on the phone for at least a full (RECORDED) 21 minutes when we might say she was advised repeatedly by a radio dispatcher working IN the police station, as to what to possibly do, minute by minute.

.............................................

Now regardless of a kid or whatever the hell desktop experts on a random internet forum say - the above is accurate as far as I know.

The police seem to agree! They have a FULL recording of the event - even up to the shot.
AND anyone with a bit of intelligence will know that they will have listened repeatedly VERY damn carefully, to the phone call alone AS WELL AS looking into the background of all involved.

Even now with the high international interest this case has gotten, they are further under pressure to see that the law is done right - and their position so far has not changed.

Even the writer of Hondasam's link article stated:

Whatever the relationship, or no relationship, Sarah McKinley had or didn’t have with Justin Martin, he did not have the right to enter her home without her permission, even if he is baby Justin’s father (and I am making no claims that he is).

13. Justin Martin died from his own choice to break the law.

14. Sarah Shepard McKinley WAITED a full 28 minutes before opening fire following STILL on going advice from those at the other end of the phone!
(If she just wanted him dead, could she just not have fired right away as soon as he appeared? Does this sound like a person desiring to kill him?)

15. The intruder, regardless of wether he knew Sarah Mckinley or not DID NOT have the right to enter her home through force (RECORDED) and thats the law there.

16. Its the law there also that you have the right not just to defend yourself to the point of taking a life, but you have the right to defend your home too!

17. The dead man if he had ANY kop at all - should have known the two previous points - but still he came breaking in!
He could have walked away at ANY point. He didn't.

sonic85 · 07-01-2012 2:45am

the people trying to imply that what this girl did was unreasonable should get a grip to be honest. she was perfectly within her rights to do what she did. i hope none of you are ever in a situation like that.

this is what a scumbag with a knife is capable of

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/man-who-mutilated-artist-is-jailed-for-16-years-526661.html

Biggins · 07-01-2012 2:47am

sonic85 wrote: »

the people trying to imply that what this girl did was unreasonable should get a grip to be honest. she was perfectly within her rights to do what she did. i hope none of you are ever in a situation like that.

this is what a scumbag with a knife is capable of

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/man-who-mutilated-artist-is-jailed-for-16-years-526661.html

...Or this:

Widow murdered at river cottage: Police fear grandmother who lived alone was stabbed to death in botched burglary

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083105/Wealthy-woman-pensioner-stabbed-death-idyllic-riverside-cottage-burglary-went-wrong.html

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 3:22am

You guys seriously using news stories about knife crimes in uk and ireland where the victims were actually helpless without the tools and time to defend themselves to justify the ambush killing of an intruder? Just to be clear, I have no problems with the shooting if it's the only thing she could have done like they broke in within seconds, even minutes.

She had in her head, the only option is to shoot them and had asked for permission to do so. She had 20 minutes to sit back and ambush anyone who breaks in. My problem is that a verbal warning about guns and possibly a warning shot would have made them run. My problem is that people here think, in this situation, regardless if you are teen mom or not, this is always the only option. Well I just can't agree with that it's always ok to shoot with no warning.

Icyseanfitz · 07-01-2012 3:39am

why should she warn them? she didnt ask them to harass her and then attempt to break into her property, its also quite clear they where not there to steal anything given the fact that they had scouted the house before hand and still decided to break in while she was home.

what gives these two scum the right to know whats inside someone's front door? she could shout out that she had a gun and the guys would come in the back, get a gun, set the house on fire, get backup or do any number of things.

as for a warning shot

she was inside i presume so how was she going to do that without destroying her house?

Manic Moran · 07-01-2012 3:41am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Well I just can't agree with that it's always ok to shoot with no warning.

There is nothing in the law that states that you must not issue a warning. If you're feeling generous, go ahead. Personally, I'm going for homeowner's discretion. The 'rules', after all, are pretty well known for both sides, the homeowner and the intruder, the warning 'you might get shot' is already inherent in burglarising a house in the US, actually verbalising it is a bit redundant.

NTM

Overheal · 07-01-2012 3:42am

So the last 200 posts, if not the last 400, have probably been about firing a warning shot.

Get the hell over it. She had the choice, she chose not to. Nobody is stopping you from warning them off, but nobody is forcing you to either. Seems pretty dry-cut.

I reckon if there was a "Trespassers will be shot" sign, you folks would have less to gripe about. Not that such a posting is a requisite to shoot trespassers.

Biggins · 07-01-2012 3:43am

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You guys seriously using news stories about knife crimes in uk and ireland where the victims were actually helpless...

We are using example where a person with a knife is capable of anything, beyond original intentions of robbery!

That part you seemed to have missed - I wonder why?

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I have no problems with the shooting if it's the only thing she could have done like they broke in within seconds, even minutes.

She had in her head, the only option is to shoot them and had asked for permission to do so. She had 20 minutes to sit back and ambush anyone who breaks in.

She asked was it ok to shoot indeed, twice - so CLEARLY she was aware of consequences! Perhaps fear them too!
Is that the mind of a heartless killer or just one with a mind to kill someone in particular - again, she could have done it in the first few 27 minutes!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

...My problem is that a verbal warning about guns and possibly a warning shot would have made them run. My problem is that people here think, in this situation, regardless if you are teen mom or not, this is always the only option. Well I just can't agree with that it's always ok to shoot with no warning.

Again this verbal warning stuff regurgitated for the umpteenth time.

No one has said "this is always the only option." Please point to where someone has stated it.
(I suspect we will be kept waiting)

We weren't in her situation at the end of the day - she was - and with advice for 21 minutes, what to do!
She seems to have followed that advice - direct from the police station.
She has been deemed to be clear of all charges as per her particular situation.

...And thats it.

Suryavarman · 07-01-2012 4:02am

I can't understand people saying that she should have warned them she was going to shoot. They were warned.

The law clearly states that it is illegal to break into somebodies house. It also states in Oklahoma that homeowners can use lethal force in order to protect their property. They knew that what they were doing was illegal and yet continued to do it, thereby ignoring their warning.

The woman decided that after more than 20 minutes of a burglary that it was necessary to fire at the burglars, which the law clearly states that she was allowed to do so.

To put it simply, there is no argument here. The woman wasn't required by law to abstain from using lethal force. The criminals were not forced to spend over twenty minutes attempting this crime. They gambled and lost.

I would also hazard a guess that the criminals would have done the same thing in her situation if not reacted sooner. There should be absolutely no sympathy for these people. Breaking and entering is one of the few if not the only crime that can always be committed with a clear mind and that should be remembered when discussing situations like this.

Lanaier · 07-01-2012 6:48am

Nice story.

Good riddance, shame she didn't kill them both.

EUSSR · 07-01-2012 9:20am

Every home should have a gun. Enter illegally, expect death.

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 12:47pm

CodeMonkey wrote: »

She had in her head, the only option is to shoot them and had asked for permission to do so. She had 20 minutes to sit back and ambush anyone who breaks in. My problem is that a verbal warning about guns and possibly a warning shot would have made them run. My problem is that people here think, in this situation, regardless if you are teen mom or not, this is always the only option. Well I just can't agree with that it's always ok to shoot with no warning.

"ambush" :rolleyes: People are ambushed in locations where they are entitled to be. The only person being ambushed was the homeowner, since they could have broken in when she wasn't there.

Even here in Ireland we know that American homeowners have better rights; so - as Manic Moran pointed out - they had a warning. They knew the risk.

Or are you trying to suggest that they knew less about American law than we do ?

And they still chose to break in. With knives. With intent to threaten (at least).

They had 20 mins not to break in......to change their thug minds and fvck off home.

Why you are defending their "right" to do this and their "right" to a warning while completely ignoring the right of a law-abiding citizen not to be threatened in their own home is beyond me.

I can only wonder why you are so resolutely speaking up for the thugs and dismissing the homeowner's rights.

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 12:49pm

Biggins wrote:

They decided for 28 minutes to try getting in - front and back.

Since it's AH, can we just clarify that we're talking about the house ?

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 1:02pm

Biggins wrote: »

We are using example where a person with a knife is capable of anything, beyond original intentions of robbery!

That part you seemed to have missed - I wonder why?

If they were unarmed you can post links about robbery and scumbags beating victims to death when doing something beyond their original intentions of whatever crime is being committed. The examples is another lame attempt at what ifs worse case scenarios to garner sympathy. Unfortunately, the papers don't report how the majority of crimes committed by people with knifes don't end in such extreme violence otherwise I can link them too.

She asked was it ok to shoot indeed, twice - so CLEARLY she was aware of consequences! Perhaps fear them too!
Is that the mind of a heartless killer or just one with a mind to kill someone in particular - again, she could have done it in the first few 27 minutes!

Done what in the first 27mins? Shoot them? She's made the decision very early on to ambush them because she's outnumbered. It's the smart cold thing to do and she probably would've done the same without a baby which will probably not get as much praise from you guys.

Again this verbal warning stuff regurgitated for the umpteenth time.

This no verbal warning stuff for the duration of the house attack shows she's no intention of giving the attackers a chance to run away. If they enter they are dead, they just don't know it. She's no obligation to and she's done nothing illegal. Doesn't make her a bloody saint.

No one has said "this is always the only option." Please point to where someone has stated it.
(I suspect we will be kept waiting)

No one probably said it in such a direct way so you're probably right. I am too fed up with this thread to go looking. Let's just say you're right about everything. She's a lovely person, someone for your daughters to look up to and all that.

Biggins · 07-01-2012 1:04pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Since it's AH, can we just clarify that we're talking about the house ?

Yes, from what I've read and heard.
Of those minutes, 21 alone was spent on the phone to the police dispatcher (in the article in post 1.)

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 1:13pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"ambush" :rolleyes: People are ambushed in locations where they are entitled to be. The only person being ambushed was the homeowner, since they could have broken in when she wasn't there.

They did, at least she suspected someone broke in previously and pills were missing. Go read the articles or something.

Even here in Ireland we know that American homeowners have better rights; so - as Manic Moran pointed out - they had a warning. They knew the risk.

Or are you trying to suggest that they knew less about American law than we do ?

And they still chose to break in. With knives. With intent to threaten (at least).

Are you suggested that the law is an enough deterrent to stop people committing crimes. If they do then...DEATH?

They had 20 mins not to break in......to change their thug minds and fvck off home.

Why should they if they think there's only an unarmed teen mom inside who they can easily over power?

Why you are defending their "right" to do this and their "right" to a warning while completely ignoring the right of a law-abiding citizen not to be threatened in their own home is beyond me.

Because the punishment as a result of no warning doesn't fit the crime. Illegally entering a premise should not result in death.

I can only wonder why you are so resolutely speaking up for the thugs and dismissing the homeowner's rights.

I'm not really speaking up for the thugs. I am commenting on how cold the girl was.

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 1:28pm

I give up.

They were warned. They knew the risks. They chose badly.

And your "why should they" sums up a phenomenal level of condoning of crimes.
They should fvck off because they had no right to be there in the first place.

So that's me out.

mickydoomsux · 07-01-2012 1:28pm

CodeMonkey wrote: »

They did, at least she suspected someone broke in previously and pills were missing. Go read the articles or something.

Are you suggested that the law is an enough deterrent to stop people committing crimes. If they do then...DEATH?

Why should they if they think there's only an unarmed teen mom inside who they can easily over power?

Because the punishment as a result of no warning doesn't fit the crime. Illegally entering a premise should not result in death.

I'm not really speaking up for the thugs. I am commenting on how cold the girl was.

You sir are a liberal fool.

These guys deserved everything they got. You **** with the bull you get the horns. People shouldn't be terrified in their own home because some low life decides he needs to break in.

There needs to be consequences, up to and including death. It tends to eliminate recidivism and thin the growing herd of scum that our namby-pamby, "treat the perpatrator like a victim" society has created.

Biggins · 07-01-2012 1:29pm

CodeMonkey wrote: »

If they were unarmed you can post links about robbery and scumbags beating victims to death when doing something beyond their original intentions of whatever crime is being committed. The examples is another lame attempt at what ifs worse case scenarios to garner sympathy.

The posted links are PERFECT examples of when robberies go wrong - something that you yet again fail to grasp (or don't want to see!) and has a bearing on EVERY robbery ever taking place where a resident is at home.

When someone is breaking in, to get in - are you going to sit calmly on the sofa/in bed and say to yourself... "well they are only here to rob so they will leave me alone - I have nothing to fear!"
People inside DON'T know 100% for sure what the fcuk the aggressors are going to do once they get in (so they defend themselves to the best of their abilities) - but CodeMoney can't see yet grasp that concept either - or doesn't want to!
...But lets try spinning the links as something else! Some other off tangent, load of cobblers!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Done what in the first 27mins? Shoot them? She's made the decision very early on to ambush them because she's outnumbered.

Ambush them?
PLEASE PROVE THAT! otherwise yet again your talking more crap!
You were there? You have proof? PLEASE DO TELL!
The world will find you remarkable that you have this amazing insight to know what and how she did this ambush!
Please show us your proof of this ambush!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

This no verbal warning stuff for the duration of the house attack...

AGAIN, you have remarkable insight to what happened!
We don't know if she cried out to them or not, to go away.
We have not the full recording of the break-in - but by your words, you seem to know about all those minutes and can say she didn't call out!
Amazing that!
PLEASE DO TELL HOW YOU KNOW THESE THINGS FOR SURE!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

...shows she's no intention of giving the attackers a chance to run away...

They had over 27 minutes to run away - of their own volition.
What was she supposed to do? Go outside, hold their hand and lead them to their cars?

AGAIN, please show your proof that she had intentions or not, on purpose as your alluding to...
More amazing remarkable insight - you had to have been there with all these amazing abilities to tell exactly what happened, her state of mind and her exact intentions!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Doesn't make her a bloody saint.

HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Where has anyone said she was a saint or even make her out to be?
PLEASE SHOW US!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

...She's a lovely person, someone for your daughters to look up to and all that.

My daughters can look to their own.
If they chose to follow the steps of a young woman and defend themselves to save their life which is possibly in threat, I'd be so very damn proud of them too!

No one has said "this is always the only option." Please point to where someone has stated it.
(I suspect we will be kept waiting)

Looks like we ARE being kept waiting - your clearly not going to back up your earlier statement that someone has stated "shooting was the only option"
AGAIN - Please point to where someone has stated it.

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I am commenting on how cold the girl was.

YET AGAIN, even more remarkable, amazing insight and possession of her exact state of mind!

WoW - what has happened to innocent until proven guilty!
I guess that gets thrown out the window when it suits - but Codemonekey has evidence to show how cold she was - we can wait a while for him to show us this exact proof!
(Don't hold your breath in waiting!)

Personally I would have thought that she was scared, worried, afraid also for her child, and thats just to begin with - but no, Codemonkey knows that she was 'cold'.
Amazing knowledge!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I'll stop responding unless someone else have something concrete to say.

You know for one that constantly is beating on about wanting to chat about "concrete" items, all you have done is give us your endless non-concrete conjecture and regurgitating about theories of warning shots non-stop, and statements that espouse that you might as well have been there with your great ability of amazing great insight, know exactly how things actually happened, what was going through the young mothers mind and her ambushing, alluding to, possible murderous intentions!

Amazing concrete stuff your offering up!

CARE TO BACK ANY OF IT UP?
You know - something concrete?

CodeMonkey · 07-01-2012 2:54pm

Biggins wrote: »

The posted links are PERFECT examples of when robberies go wrong - something that you yet again fail to grasp (or don't want to see!) and has a bearing on EVERY robbery ever taking place where a resident is at home.

You fail to grasp that the worse case scenario in your head is not justification for not trying to warn off intruders. My point about how people here think shooting is the only option comes from the fact that you guys clearly stated that there is never ever any need to give a warning. If they enter...they die.

When someone is breaking in, to get in - are you going to sit calmly on the sofa/in bed and say to yourself... "well they are only here to rob so they will leave me alone - I have nothing to fear!"

Yeah, cause that's what i said.

People inside DON'T know 100% for sure what the fcuk the aggressors are going to do once they get in (so they defend themselves to the best of their abilities) - but CodeMoney can't see yet grasp that concept either - or doesn't want to!

Don't people usually defend themselves by first trying to scare off possible intruders and use the gun as a last resort? I am commenting on the fact that this appears not to be an option.

...But lets try spinning the links as something else! Some other off tangent, load of cobblers!

You guys are the one who posted the links. You mean I mis-interpreting the links? They are not examples of please look at what might happen if she didn't shoot them and therefore what she did is completely justified?

Ambush them?
PLEASE PROVE THAT! otherwise yet again your talking more crap!
You were there? You have proof? PLEASE DO TELL!
The world will find you remarkable that you have this amazing insight to know what and how she did this ambush!
Please show us your proof of this ambush!

Let's see, what do we know. People breaking in. Probably knew someone inside. No warning that trespassers will be shot. She lies in waiting hoping they'd give up. If not, boom. Sounds like an ambush to me.

AGAIN, you have remarkable insight to what happened!
We don't know if she cried out to them or not, to go away.
We have not the full recording of the break-in - but by your words, you seem to know about all those minutes and can say she didn't call out!
Amazing that!
PLEASE DO TELL HOW YOU KNOW THESE THINGS FOR SURE!

We don't know for sure. I just disagree with the fact that people here are saying she doesn't need to. As someone who is trying to avoid shooting someone else I'd expect her to. If she didn't that fine, I just don't like what people here are saying.

AGAIN, please show your proof that she had intentions or not, on purpose as your alluding to...

What prood have you got about her intentions or her state of mind?

More amazing remarkable insight

You're starting to make me blush with your comments on my remarkable insight.

- you had to have been there with all these amazing abilities to tell exactly what happened, her state of mind and her exact intentions!

Maybe I'm making a point that you also don't know the state of her mind and her exact intentions. We both have different ideas while I see your point of view, you completely see no possibility that if she acted differently this whole shooting could have been avoided. If she warned them and they still managed to break in she can still shoot them.

HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Where has anyone said she was a saint or even make her out to be?
PLEASE SHOW US!

Yeah, you gushing over her actions. Look at the thread title. She's a saint in your eyes. Can do no wrong.

Looks like we ARE being kept waiting - your clearly not going to back up your earlier statement that someone has stated "shooting was the only option"
AGAIN - Please point to where someone has stated it.

Yeah, guess I can't. Means all the points I've made are invalid. Nice debating with you.

WoW - what has happened to innocent until proven guilty!
I guess that gets thrown out the window when it suits - but Codemonekey has evidence to show how cold she was - we can wait a while for him to show us this exact proof!
(Don't hold your breath in waiting!)

Sorry, you demand proof from me of what now? That's she's cold and knew what she was doing like getting permission? Nothing short of a confession from her will do for you I'm afraid so that's impossible for me. What exactly am I accusing her of? Cold and indifferent to shooting an intruder instead of trying to warn them off? That really that unfair a comment on my part?

Personally I would have thought that she was scared, worried, afraid also for her child, and thats just to begin with

Those qualities means that a person can't be cold and indifferent to shooting others without thinking about avoiding it? Really? You too have remarkable insight.

Raging_Ninja · 07-01-2012 3:09pm

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You fail to grasp that the worse case scenario in your head is not justification for not trying to warn off intruders. My point about how people here think shooting is the only option comes from the fact that you guys clearly stated that there is never ever any need to give a warning. If they enter...they die.

Yeah, cause that's what i said.

Don't people usually defend themselves by first trying to scare off possible intruders and use the gun as a last resort? I am commenting on the fact that this appears not to be an option.

You guys are the one who posted the links. You mean I mis-interpreting the links? They are not examples of please look at what might happen if she didn't shoot them and therefore what she did is completely justified?

Let's see, what do we know. People breaking in. Probably knew someone inside. No warning that trespassers will be shot. She lies in waiting hoping they'd give up. If not, boom. Sounds like an ambush to me.

We don't know for sure. I just disagree with the fact that people here are saying she doesn't need to. As someone who is trying to avoid shooting someone else I'd expect her to. If she didn't that fine, I just don't like what people here are saying.

What prood have you got about her intentions or her state of mind?

You're starting to make me blush with your comments on my remarkable insight.

Maybe I'm making a point that you also don't know the state of her mind and her exact intentions. We both have different ideas while I see your point of view, you completely see no possibility that if she acted differently this whole shooting could have been avoided. If she warned them and they still managed to break in she can still shoot them.

Yeah, you gushing over her actions. Look at the thread title. She's a saint in your eyes. Can do no wrong.

Yeah, guess I can't. Means all the points I've made are invalid. Nice debating with you.

Sorry, you demand proof from me of what now? That's she's cold and knew what she was doing like getting permission? Nothing short of a confession from her will do for you I'm afraid so that's impossible for me. What exactly am I accusing her of? Cold and indifferent to shooting an intruder instead of trying to warn them off? That really that unfair a comment on my part?

Those qualities means that a person can't be cold and indifferent to shooting others without thinking about avoiding it? Really? You too have remarkable insight.

there are instances where giving a warning is not conducive to your well-being/ sure giving the assailants a warning *may* have made them go away. on the other hand, it could have goaded them. you (and she) don't know how they would have responded. the worst case scenario does certainly warrant shooting first.

besides, you seem to think that they didn't know she was there. as my sister has just said (here to me at the kitchen table - she doesn't read boards), the warning was the couch up against the front door (which is not exactly a stealthy endeavour).

i've also just realised that one guy breaking in the front door and another trying to break in the back door is a classic tactic for trapping the occupant so they can't run away.

i honestly think you suffer from a lack of imagination as regards to negative consequences.

Icyseanfitz · 07-01-2012 3:18pm

ambush :rolleyes: what a fcuking idiot, next time i get attacked il make sure to ask the scum if he is alright while he is doing it

Mod: Poster banned.

Biggins · 07-01-2012 3:25pm

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You fail to grasp that the worse case scenario in your head is not justification for not trying to warn off intruders.

O' thanks for being able to seem whats in my mind too.
Thanks for speaking up for me and thank for going off on another convenient tangent to what we others are talking about!

MORE ignoring of what we're actually talking about!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

My point about how people here think shooting is the only option comes from the fact that you guys clearly stated that there is never ever any need to give a warning.

So then - your NOT going to back up your earlier statement about what others have actally said then?

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Don't people usually defend themselves by first trying to scare off possible intruders and use the gun as a last resort? I am commenting on the fact that this appears not to be an option.

...And trying to state it as fact?
Do you know how people usually defend themselves?
Have you done some studies on it? Please show us your results to back-up your remarkable insight!
(I guess we will be waiting for that too!)

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You guys are the one who posted the links. You mean I mis-interpreting the links? They are not examples of please look at what might happen if she didn't shoot them and therefore what she did is completely justified?

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Headline - YOU CAN'T MISS IT - WELL UNLESS YOU WANT TO!!!!!!!!!
"...Grandmother who lived alone was stabbed to death in botched burglary"
...and what do you read into that?
Your previous reply: "The examples is another lame attempt at what ifs worse case scenarios to garner sympathy"

Classic stupid stuff!

AGAIN for the third time:

The posted links are PERFECT examples of when robberies go wrong...
Thats why the links was posted - I think its obvious to the rest of us!
You just want to see something else - and spin them as such.
Me? I'm sticking with whats in the headline and the never guaranteed outcome of any robbery!

Let's see, what do we know. People breaking in. Probably knew someone inside. No warning that trespassers will be shot. She lies in waiting hoping they'd give up. If not, boom. Sounds like an ambush to me.

Ok.

1. She does lie/hide/cower(?) in waiting, hoping they would go away!
WHO THE FCUK WOULDN'T!
Did you want her to go all "John Rambo" instead?????
I suspect she'd be damned by you equally if she did - as she didn't but still given out to by you!

2. ...and you use that as a means to give out about her and then claim by some remarkable method of analysis that its an ambush?
...AND STILL NO PROOF OFFERED UP!

...Look at the thread title. She's a saint in your eyes. Can do no wrong.

O' well, here we are again folks...
More amazing ability to read people's minds and say what they were/are thinking FOR SURE!

PROOF?

WHERE has ANYONE said she was a saint?

PROOF?

What prood have you got about her intentions or her state of mind?

I don't NOR have EVER said I do.
What I have done is state:

Personally I would have thought that she was scared...

...and words to that effect.

You however come out with definitive statements of exactly what her actions was!
You have come out with definitive statements of exactly what her mental state was!
You have come out with definitive statements of exactly what happened!

Care to back any of it up with proof?

...As someone who is trying to avoid shooting someone else I'd expect her to. If she didn't that fine,

So by you knowing her THAT well, you are expecting things of her?
WOW!
How do you know her that well to be now expecting things of her?

Yeah, guess I can't. Means all the points I've made are invalid. Nice debating with you.

So you admit something at last - you CANNOT back up your statement that we espoused that "shooting was the only option".
Well thanks for posting that lie and NOW FINALLY posting a retraction!

I didn't state '...all the points you have made are invalid' - HAVE I?
PLEASE PROVE WHERE EXACTLY I SAID THAT - OR EVEN ALLUDED IT! PROOF?

Sorry, you demand proof from me of what now? That's she's cold and knew what she was doing like getting permission?

You stated with your remarkable insight that you knew she was 'cold'.
Please again (we missed it the first time), PROVE to us how you know this?
Please tell us how you can expertly categorise her state as 'cold'...

Originally Posted by CodeMonkey
I am commenting on how cold the girl was.

Care to back this arrived at, statement of fact up? Proof of statement?

Originally Posted by CodeMonkey
I'll stop responding unless someone else have something concrete to say.

You know, if you want people to converse with concrete stuff, it helps if you give some yourself to begin with!

So instead of posting lies about what we are supposed to have said, instead of posting non-concrete stuff (but you demand the opposite) - how about you start by reading whats exactly provided to you on this forum.

It might keep you more insightful - and hopefully more honest!

Liam Byrne · 07-01-2012 3:40pm

People breaking in. Probably knew someone inside. No warning that trespassers will be shot. She lies in waiting hoping they'd give up. If not, boom. Sounds like an ambush to me.

Yet again you're ignoring the fact that the law in America has ALREADY warned them of this.

Plus they were NOT "trespassers"!!! They broke in (actually, broke through) her front door brandishing a knife!

"Trespassers" are those who use your back garden as a shortcut to the pub.....not those intent on doing you harm.

Your phrasing and argument are stunningly in favour of those aggressively breaking the law - why is that ?

stupidusername · 07-01-2012 3:49pm

Calm down Biggins, you'll give yourself a stroke.

Nobody is saying they had the right to break in and expect no consequences. What I think, and what I think CodeMonkey is saying is that it seems it would be the natural thing to do to warn somebody that you have a gun and will use it or fire a warning shot, rather than waiting till she has permission to shoot him in the head.

Most people would avoid shooting somebody even in the most understandable of situations, and some of us find it odd how she seemed/seems perfectly ok with it.

Biggins · 07-01-2012 3:59pm

stupidusername wrote: »

Calm down Biggins, you'll give yourself a stroke.

Nobody is saying they had the right to break in and expect no consequences. What I think, and what I think CodeMonkey is saying is that it seems it would be the natural thing to do to warn somebody that you have a gun and will use it or fire a warning shot, rather than waiting till she has permission to shoot him in the head.

Most people would avoid shooting somebody even in the most understandable of situations, and some of us find it odd how she seemed/seems perfectly ok with it.

What CodeMonkey is doing is stating things as fact - where he offers no concrete proof.
Hell he offers nothing but stuff he sees - some of which is not even stated by us - but he says it is!

what I think CodeMonkey is saying is that it seems it would be the natural thing to do to warn somebody...

Thats perfectly fine to think that! Its an opinion.
HOWEVER in this case - as we DO NOT have the full recording but the police do, WE CANNOT state she didn't shout a warning - but amazingly Codemonkey can!

...some of us find it odd how she seemed/seems perfectly ok with it

Have you watched the videos available? She was in at least one of those, still VERY shaken - and that was sometime afterwards.

As to her being ok with it...
I CANNOT state her condition of mindset (but CodeMonkey can!!!) - then to now except what we can see in available video and then with some better insight, more hopefully accurately speculate - however if I had to shoot someone in order to defend myself and any of my kids, FOR ME, I'd be to some extent feel ok about it.
I might also fear the consequences (as the girl did by seeking reassurance in twice asking "was it ok?") and rightly so too.

If this was my daughter, I'd be proud of her!

Comments