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

Overheal

cross-topic: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056508024

Should've ambushed them.

Opinicus

I can't stop laughing at Codemonkey's argument. FFS

Biggins

Opinicus wrote: »

I can't stop laughing at Codemonkey's argument. FFS

Well I don't agree with him - but he's sticking to his guns (no pun intended) - so credit to him for that!

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

I get annoyed when - TO REPEAT - words are put in our mouths that we never stated - or thoughts we have NEVER thought - but you seem to have seen them and/or said they exist in text or in our minds!

Well you definitely said she was alone at night and was stalked for 2 years etc. I am not saying you deliberately lied but a lot of you also don't have your facts right.

Again for the record, I am VERY fair to those that are fair back.

I don't doubt that usually. I am not new to boards. You were however not very fair in your response to my opinions from the beginning and got very worked up.

Do the above equally and ALL might disagree with you but by god they should ALL be fair with you in return!

Look at the crap up for anything just posted above. The intruder are now axe wielding, sadistic tormentor of the girl now. They are also savy criminals who knew exactly how long it'll take the cops to respond. I had to argue against all this made up bulls**t throughout the entire thread for no other reason than I disagree with how much praise the girl should get. You'll be bugging him for proof too if he's not siding with you. Fair...ha.

CodeMonkey

Opinicus wrote: »

I can't stop laughing at Codemonkey's argument. FFS

Why? Cause logically arguments confuses you?

Galwayguy35

The_Minister wrote: »

Normally these threads end up in a battle between gung-ho, frothing at the mouth loonies who want to be able to do anything they want to an intruder, no matter what danger they actually pose, and those of us who believe in civil and human rights.


In this case however, I think there is no doubt that she had the right to defend herself.

Anyone who breaks into someones house has no rights.To hell with them they deserve what they get.

CodeMonkey

Shelli2 wrote: »

If you read my post properly, you'll see that I said we don't know and cannot prove where she was aiming. :rolleyes:

Yeah and if you've read my posts and others and the many articles out there, you will see that she knew how to use guns and planned an ambush. She wasn't going to fire a shotgun to maim. :rolleyes:

This is what she said “The biggest thing you cannot do in a situation like that, you cannot panic. You have to hold yourself together and I knew that. I knew if I screamed, I would give my position away in the house and I wanted to see him first.”. So she waited in ambush. Not the helpless girl you all are portraying her to be.

Anyone breaking down my door, I'm going to assume they are capable of doing and are likely to cause harm to my family, and as such, yes, I would shoot first and ask questions later.

Ok, fair enough. What if you had 20+ minutes to warn them to go away or you'll shot. Is that a none option for you? Or would you point the gun at the door and wait?

lesserspottedchloe

Proper order-only wish she had shot him in the balls first ...

seriously, two 'men' (one of them who had previously stalked her) that killed the dogs first, then spent 20 mins trying to break in-eventually suceeding with the use of great force and a 12 INCH hunting knife VS a recently widowed eighteen year old and a baby..how could anybody argue that she should've fired a warning? This was a pre-meditated attack on a person who was in an extreamley fragile state and I don't remember reading that they warned her about the huge knife they were carrying or what its intended use was?

I'd like to think that in her situation I'd have the common sense and bravery to defend myself in a similer way..I wouldn't have been wasting rounds on warning shots that would give my position away and allow them even more of an advantage over me -I mean what if they had a gun aswell?

Crimes where the perpetrators succeed in robbing, raping and murdering the victim in their own home are a lot more common in the US than they are here-as well as the rape of infants and children-IMO she was right to do what she did as those guys were well aware of the laws and risks attached to their crime..

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Well you... etc.

For the sake of staying on topic, I won't retort to more off topic stuff than I have done already.
We can as they say, agree to see different in in the matter and how each of us have commented on the matter.

I hope thats fair enough.

Liam Byrne

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. What if you had 20+ minutes to warn them to go away or you'll shot. Is that a none option for you? Or would you point the gun at the door and wait?

I reckon any normal person would be getting more and more freaked at the fact that they weren't just random thugs (who would have fecked off to an easier target) and that their perseverance in breaking in meant the only 2 of the 4 legally entitled to be anywhere near the house were probably more at risk.

Rabidlamb

So to satisfy everyone here she would have needed to pause & consult a 40+ page thread before proceeding.
No wonder lawyers make so much money stretching an instinctive response into a 2 week trial.
The girl did well, end of.

sonic85

up for anything wrote: »

It took them over 20 minutes to break in. I'd have to wonder why? Were they sadistically enjoying prolonging the torment and panic they thought she must be feeling at what might happen when they finally got in or were they just totally inept

i asked myself that question also - surely if they just wanted to break in it would take less than 5 minutes? id imagine the house had windows as well as doors surely it would take a lot less effort to get in if all they wanted was a few pills. it sounded to me like they were toying with her to be honest.

the house was also in a pretty remote location wasnt it - there werent any neighbours in the immediate vicinity so they knew they had time and wouldnt be disturbed.

up for anything

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Look at the crap up for anything just posted above. The intruder are now axe wielding, sadistic tormentor of the girl now. They are also savy criminals who knew exactly how long it'll take the cops to respond. I had to argue against all this made up bulls**t throughout the entire thread for no other reason than I disagree with how much praise the girl should get. You'll be bugging him for proof too if he's not siding with you. Fair...ha.

Too kind of you.

Sorry, I got confused with another story. This chap only had a 12" hunting knife. My apologies. Don't you think they were sadistic coming to the house of a recently bereaved girl and each of them taking a door and knocking on them with aggressive intent to break in and just happened to be carrying a large knife? I'm not sure what you'd call that if not sadistic.

As with all stories of this kind we never find out the exact details and everybody has their own slant or flavour on the events, even. From you I get that she was fully prepared and had an ambush planned. I would imagine most home owners who own guns, and even those who don't, have already gone through scenarios in their minds, much like a fire drill, and are prepared to some extent for a situation like this one. Even visualising such scenarios and your own reactions makes it easier to carry out such reactions in actual fact.

ETA: As for them being savvy criminals who had an idea of how long it would take the cops to respond. I would imagine they did. They'd want to be complete fecking eejits to spend a full 20 minutes trying to break in otherwise especially when they must have known she would ring the police pretty much as soon as they arrived.

Dublindude69

Dude was armed with a knife, that means he intended to use it. People who bring guns to these things don't intend to use them, they just point them at people and demand money etc. Guns make to much noise. He brought a knife, he intended to use it on her.

Birdie086

Fair play to her, I can only imagine if I was in the same situation I would freeze and panic. I take my hat off to her.

Can't believe there is an argument going on about her actions, maybe she should
have used the 20 + mins they took to break in to make them some sandwiches and fix a few drinks for em....................

woodoo

She did the right thing. It has to be remembered she had no clue exactly how many of them there was, she was scared and alone with a child and they may have been armed also.

Her reaction was to shoot them on sight. Absolutely the right thing imo. This rubbish about shooting them in the leg is not realistic. It would have been a very frightening and uncertain situation. She had to do whatever she thought would maximize the safety of herself and her child. Not care about them at all.

Caring about the future wellbeing of the scum that tried to break in would have been very very low down her priority list.

CodeMonkey

Just making the point that self-protection in a home is to prevent a minor incident from escalating into a major life-or-death situation. Self-protection should not begin and end with deadly force. I see the girl as someone who took that as her only option because there's no evidence she tried anything else. Fair enough she might have been scared and didn't want to risk other options.

I also asked the question if it's ok if she's not a girl alone but a man. No one seems to want to answer that. It's always easier to say it's the right and only option because the homeowner can be nothing other than a scared girl and the intruders can be nothing other than savage criminals with the intentions of killing and raping. All this despite the evidence that she's not so helpless and the intruders are quite clueless.

Carlow52

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Just making the point that self-protection in a home is to prevent a minor incident from escalating into a major life-or-death situation. Self-protection should not begin and end with deadly force. I see the girl as someone who took that as her only option because there's no evidence she tried anything else. Fair enough she might have been scared and didn't want to risk other options.

I also asked the question if it's ok if she's not a girl alone but a man. No one seems to want to answer that. It's always easier to say it's the right and only option because the homeowner can be nothing other than a scared girl and the intruders can be nothing other than savage criminals with the intentions of killing and raping. All this despite the evidence that she's not so helpless and the intruders are quite clueless.

kicking in a door with a 12" knife in hand is hardly minor

"When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.
Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry"

Liam Byrne

CodeMonkey wrote:

I also asked the question if it's ok if she's not a girl alone but a man. No one seems to want to answer that.

Crikey you do like making stuff up. The above claim is 100% false.

CodeMonkey wrote:

It's always easier to say it's the right and only option because the homeowner can be nothing other than a scared girl and the intruders can be nothing other than savage criminals with the intentions of killing and raping.

Leaving aside the other links that you dismissed where the homeowner wasn't a scared girl, of course. And leaving aside the inconvenient truth that they spent over 20 mins breaking in, showing severe determination and intent.

CodeMonkey wrote:

All this despite the evidence that she's not so helpless and the intruders are quite clueless.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that the intruders were "quite clueless".

CodeMonkey

Carlow52 wrote: »

kicking in a door with a 12" knife in hand is hardly minor

So if you are the homeowner. With a loaded shotgun. Someone spent 20+ trying to break in. You will always assume he's heavily armed and shoot first. No attempt to scare them away? Or have you not realise I am not talking about this particular incident? Maybe I should move my questions and debate to humanities instead.

Lapin

If the intruder didn't break into the house he'd still be alive.

Moral - Don't break into houses and you won't get shot.

Its really quite simple when you think about it.

Well done that girl.

MagicSean

CodeMonkey wrote: »

So if you are the homeowner. With a loaded shotgun. Someone spent 20+ trying to break in. You will always assume he's heavily armed and shoot first. No attempt to scare them away? Or have you not realise I am not talking about this particular incident? Maybe I should move my questions and debate to humanities instead.

What should she have done to scare them? Put a sheet over her and pretend to be a ghost?

joseph brand

Biggins wrote: »

You have a point about the later aspects - but to be clear - I'd be proud of her staying calm, thinking of feeding the child a bottle with one hand to keep it quiet and not give away her position, hold two guns with the other hand and still holding them all, managed to stop an incoming danger - while still on the phone!

The above to do takes a person of exceptional composure!
Thats why I say I'd be proud of her.

My wife often comments on my inability to do 2 things at once. She says it's 'men' in general. Here is a perfect example of a woman multitasking.

She's like Jason Bourne.

Great to see the law helping the victim. It's a sad state of affairs when stories of victims being protected are few and far between.

joseph brand

CodeMonkey wrote: »

So if you are the homeowner. With a loaded shotgun. Someone spent 20+ trying to break in. You will always assume he's heavily armed and shoot first. No attempt to scare them away? Or have you not realise I am not talking about this particular incident? Maybe I should move my questions and debate to humanities instead.

The general consensus here would be "Yes, move it wherever you like. Perhaps even just keep your questions and debate to yourself".

You're just trolling.

Biggins

joseph brand wrote: »

My wife often comments on my inability to do 2 things at once. She says it's 'men' in general. Here is a perfect example of a woman multitasking.

She's like Jason Bourne.

Great to see the law helping the victim. It's a sad state of affairs when stories of victims being protected are few and far between.

After four kids, I too eventually learned the method to hold a small child in one arm while gripping a bottle by finger tips with the same side hand attached.
It is indeed very possible and very handy when you need to carry a child around but still be able to pick up/do stuff with the other hand.
(Short version: Hold the child close and turned slightly to your chest with the length of your arm underneath (support and balance), while then carefully placing the bottle in the mouth of the child. Use fingertips then just for balance of bottle straight. Sometimes you can balance a bottle between your chest just below your chin and your chin itself, when necessary.)

joseph brand

Biggins wrote: »

After four kids, I too eventually learned the method to hold a small child in one arm while gripping a bottle by finger tips with the same side hand attached.
It is indeed very possible and very hand when you heed to carry a child around but still be able to pick up/do stuff with the other hand.
(Short version: Hold the child close and turned slightly to your chest with the length of your arm underneath (support and balance), while then carefully placing the bottle in the mouth of the child. Use fingertips then just for balance of bottle straight. Sometimes you can balance a bottle between your chest just below your chin and your chin itself, when necessary.)

I've half as many kids and I believe you are just showing off.

BTW, most of the time I just choose not to try multitasking. It is often unnecessary. Or maybe I'm lazy.

Biggins

joseph brand wrote: »

I've half as many kids and I believe you are just showing off.

BTW, most of the time I just choose not to try multitasking. It is often unnecessary. Or maybe I'm lazy.

Try feeding a starving (giving out) child while you have other work to get done to a deadline.
You learn quick!

I did - no choice!

what a day

Suppose the woman could have fired a shot at the top of the door to scare of the scum bags. But to be honest i think she deserves an award for bravery. No one should be able to break into some one elses property without knowing the conscuquences could be death. If your at home you should be safe and private. I think its crazy when you hear storeys of burglers sueing a home owner for cuting them selves or some thing.

Imagine if this woman did not shoot that guy we could be reading a story of how a woman was raped and murdered along with the child, sick sick people out there so you should be allowed keep them out there using any means necessary.

Think_then_talk

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Just making the point that self-protection in a home is to prevent a minor incident from escalating into a major life-or-death situation. Self-protection should not begin and end with deadly force. I see the girl as someone who took that as her only option because there's no evidence she tried anything else. Fair enough she might have been scared and didn't want to risk other options.

I also asked the question if it's ok if she's not a girl alone but a man. No one seems to want to answer that. It's always easier to say it's the right and only option because the homeowner can be nothing other than a scared girl and the intruders can be nothing other than savage criminals with the intentions of killing and raping. All this despite the evidence that she's not so helpless and the intruders are quite clueless.

It is not a matter of if your male or female alone or with others,"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat from an illegal intruder when one is lawfully in one's home. It to is prevent an assault upon yourself or another who is the legal occupier-tenant-lodger-inhabitant of the home (structure).In some States in the U.S. you can use force to protect your property..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine.

The Italian's permits the use of guns and knives by people in homes or workplaces to protect lives or belongings.

We however do not.I do recall here in Ireland in the 90's a man killed another during a robbery he clamed self-defence and the judge said he was insane.He was released a year or two later.

Manic Moran

There is no duty to retreat in Ireland.

amen

an 18 year old married to a guy in his 50s?

what a day

amen wrote: »

an 18 year old married to a guy in his 50s?

True, that also struck me as odd

bruschi

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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

CodeMonkey wrote: »

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

apart form ridiculous points of ambushing burglars breaking into your house and other such nonsense

the above is probably one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen written. seriously :eek:

I couldnt care less if it was a girl, an army cadet or what not. 2 aggressive men are outside trying to break into someones house, and one gets shot and dies when he breaks in. A very harsh punishment, but one that wouldnt happen if he wasnt there. He put himself in that position. She was defending herself in the best way she knew how. Trying to justify him robbing someone because he was a poor little junkie.

Lanaier

bruschi wrote: »

I couldnt care less if it was a girl, an army cadet or what not. 2 aggressive men are outside trying to break into someones house.....

Amen, wouldn't matter if it was Megatron on the other side of that door. They still got what they deserved.

Overheal

Lanaier wrote: »

Amen, wouldn't matter if it was Megatron on the other side of that door. They still got what they deserved.

In fairness if it was Megatron they would have deserved it more.

opinion guy

Media are starting to pick up on rumours doing the rounds on the net
http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-mother-who-shot-intruder-faces-national-criticism-20120110,0,6319925.story

Seems likes the cops might have to you know....investigate and stuff...talk of new warrants being sought

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

Media are starting to pick up on rumours doing the rounds on the net
http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-mother-who-shot-intruder-faces-national-criticism-20120110,0,6319925.story

Seems likes the cops might have to you know....investigate and stuff...talk of new warrants being sought

They don't say who they would be issuing the warrant on or why.

For the purposes of the shooting, it doesn't much matter if they knew each other, we still have a twenty minutes call from the woman with someone outside who she obviously doesn't wish to have closer contact with, and which apparently does not conflict with the dead guy's friend's call.

The fundamental moral is the same: Break into an occupied home in (especially) rural America at your own risk.

Biggins

Manic Moran wrote: »

They don't say who they would be issuing the warrant on or why.

For the purposes of the shooting, it doesn't much matter if they knew each other, we still have a twenty minutes call from the woman with someone outside who she obviously doesn't wish to have closer contact with, and which apparently does not conflict with the dead guy's friend's call.

Ultimately also backed up in word by the radio operator at the other end that heard every sound also, as the men tried their assault - and again to mention, it was recorded.

The internet will always be awash with rumours. Some you will find come from people Sarah thinks she can even trust and some might come from the dead mans family and friends who still think he was a lovely chap and was totally innocent!

Thats humans for you and the way the world works every minute!

--Kaiser--

Rabidlamb wrote: »

The bleeding heart liberals in this thread make me sick.
Shouldn't you lot be off campaigning for Anders Breivik to be released so he can be rehabilitated.
Bet you're all god botherers aswell, uuuugh . . . my skin crawls.
Have you lot not got some hippy sub-forum where you can discuss banning cars due to roadkill or something.

Pretty much sums up my views on this thread

allibastor

what i find funny about the whole thing is that she was 18 and was married to a guy who was 58 according to the paper which ran the story.

though i agree with the killing of your man, how was she to know he was not some baby raping weirdo or something like that. if someone breaks into your home with you there you must always be able to assume they mean to do harm. if they wanted to make things easier for themselves they should wait till you leave home. breaking in while someone is there has a much more sisniter undertone to it.

and your man in the photo was a big guy built like a brick **** house, is she shot him anywhere other than the chest he would have a good chance of being aboe to get back up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082716/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-shoots-dead-intruder-Justin-Shane-Martin-looking-prescription-drugs.html