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

Cantona's Collars

KeithAFC wrote: »

This is an interesting one. I don't think she did do the right thing by killing the man. She should have shot him in the leg or the arm. I think this killing might send out the wrong message.

I would question what made this man try to enter the house to commit robbery.

The article stated that he kicked it the door that had a sofa pushed up against it,that meant the sofa was blocking his legs from the line of fire.She also used a shotgun-have you ever seen anything shot at close range by a shotgun? I have and it isn't pretty,a shotgun spreads the shot and doesn't discriminate between body parts in the way a pistol does.
One can only assume that she pulled the trigger the moment the door was busted in and didn't take time to think about where she was aiming,a case of point & shoot.

Anyhow,fair play to her.No sympathy for the scumbag that broke in.

galwayrush

Heart warming / very apt thread title.:cool:

i must make sure to get extensive gun training so i can politely disarm intruders into my home who want to rob/rape me while i'm a teenager alone with my kid

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
ffs

Logical Fallacy

hondasam wrote: »

Do we really want to live in a society that allows us all to have guns with a shoot to kill policy.

Being honest, i have no issue with the ideal of legal lethal force if someone is breaking into your house.

I don't think you should be allowed to shoot someone because they came onto your property (gardens etc) but i do feel that it should be legal to protect yourself and your family within the confines of your own home.

The simple fact is in this case there were two men trying to enter the house and at least one of them had a knife, so the girl had every reason to believe her life was at risk.

I don't buy into the concept that they were carrying a knife with no intent to use it, their intended victims simply do not have the luxury of waiting to find out if the person breaking into their home or not will stab them or leave them alone.

whatdoicare

mikemac1 wrote: »

Why not ring the emergency line, that's what it is there for

The local station might ignore you but they won't ignore their superiors who are responsible for the emergency line

I did and they put me through to the local station (the first time I rang) My local station is literally 5 minutes away from me.

hondasam

whatdoicare wrote: »

I did and they put me through to the local station (the first time I rang) My local station is literally 5 minutes away from me.

You rang 999 and they transferred you to the local station, is this normal practise?

Stovepipe

Hi all,
There was one controversial case in the US where a shopowner, who had previously shot intruders and was well known for stating loudly that he would always be prepared to do so, shot and killed five intruders in one raid on his shop. Two of the raiders were found dead in the shop, bearing frontal wounds. The other three were found outside, bearing back wounds. Whilst he was cleared of a charge of murder by reason of self-defence, he came in for a lot of criticism for shooting the last three, as they were attempting to flee and were no longer a threat to him directly.

There was also a case in Ireland where a knife-armed intruder entered a man's bedroom and was shot with a shotgun. What gripped the gardai was the bloodtrail from the gate back to the bedroom. It was alleged that the intruder had actually died at the gate from the shotgun wound and had been dragged back upstairs by the householder and placed in a suitable position. The householder's wife was said to be traumatised for a long time after.

It's never clear-cut, is it?

regards
Stovepipe

whatdoicare

hondasam wrote: »

You rang 999 and they transferred you to the local station, is this normal practise?

No idea. I'm not in the habit of ringing the Gardai. I didn't know the number to my local station so I rang 999. They didn't want to know - just asked what area was I in and patched me through to my local station. I assumed this was okay - I had never rang before for anything.

Coriolanus

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi all,
There was one controversial case in the US where a shopowner, who had previously shot intruders and was well known for stating loudly that he would always be prepared to do so, shot and killed five intruders in one raid on his shop. Two of the raiders were found dead in the shop, bearing frontal wounds. The other three were found outside, bearing back wounds. Whilst he was cleared of a charge of murder by reason of self-defence, he came in for a lot of criticism for shooting the last three, as they were attempting to flee and were no longer a threat to him directly.

There was also a case in Ireland where a knife-armed intruder entered a man's bedroom and was shot with a shotgun. What gripped the gardai was the bloodtrail from the gate back to the bedroom. It was alleged that the intruder had actually died at the gate from the shotgun wound and had been dragged back upstairs by the householder and placed in a suitable position. The householder's wife was said to be traumatised for a long time after.

It's never clear-cut, is it?

regards
Stovepipe

Links? I'm especially curious about the Irish one, haven't heard it before.

Broads.ie

WHAT

On Christmas Day, 18-year-old Sarah McKinley lost her husband to lung cancer, leaving her the sole caregiver to their three-month-old son.

Ms McKinley’s husband was in his 50s and the couple were married two years ago.

eugh. It must be a sort of Deliverance style town!

Broads.ie

Stovepipe wrote: »

regards
Stovepipe

Why sign off like that? You're not writing a letter... and we can see your name.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Broads.ie wrote: »

Why sign off like that? You're not writing a letter... and we can see your name.

Oh ffs :rolleyes:

Sincerely yours.

Makikomi Esq.

Paparazzo

Broads.ie wrote: »

Why sign off like that? You're not writing a letter... and we can see your name.

Leave them alone, it's the way stovepipe rolls

Littlehorny

Would love to see the old term of "Outlaw" brought into Irish law in cases like this where if someone is invading your home they are classed as operating outside of the law so therfore forefeit the protection and rights that is normally afforded citizens.

Cork24

Littlehorny wrote: »

Would love to see the old term of "Outlaw" brought into Irish law in cases like this where if someone is invading your home they are classed as operating outside of the law so therfore forefeit the protection and rights that is normally afforded citizens.

Two Right,,, since jobs are all time low people are starting to break into peoples houses. We need to be able to do what ever it takes to keep them from putting your family's life in danger. i have a m16 bayonet and my good old trusted dog by my bed side i have has all doors closed, in the house so the dog cant get out with out alerting me. some one tried to break into my back before only for the dog making loud sounds at 3AM in the Morning i turned on all the lights and the guy must have jump the wall and ran, Lucky me but unlucky someone else that night

As i feel he was not going home empty handed. what if he did break in he would have a German shepherd on him with a knife wound in his Leg.

u know what fair ****ing play to that woman for protecting her child

Jumpy

Biggins wrote: »

The man was attacking her home for 21 minutes ALSO.
Do you seriously think a warning shot was going to deter that type of person, whom we can assume, might have done this type of thing before?
...A person that by his stalking alone, greatly knew what exactly was in the home?

Warning shot my backside.
We are talking about a trapped, scared 18 year, alone with a baby and there is men at her door breaking in!
...And you want to see niceties being carried out? Where was their niceties for fcuks sake!

Jeasus, some people are unreal!

P.S.

Firing a warning shot means:

1. Short version - Having to go outside - that means indicating she was at home with her baby, leaving both vulnerable by opening a fairly secure entrance/exit.
* As the second man was breaking in from behind ALSO, she would have had to possibly put down her baby too inside, leaving it alone while she herself going out the front (scared out of her wits!) to fire this marvellous warning shot - where she might be further jumped upon from any side!

or

2. INSIDE - Firing a guns at what exactly? The walls? The roof?
Walls? Hit the wiring - start a possible fire?
The roof? Might bring part of it down?

Daftness!

She could have just said "BANG"

Jumpy

Leonel Uptight Sharkskin wrote: »

Oh ffs :rolleyes:

Sincerely yours.

Leonel Uptight Sharkskin Esq.

XXXOOO

Posy

I was thinking that she should have shot through the door before they actually forced their way in- but then they wouldn't have been in her house yet, which could be a different story legality-wise.

Fair play to her though, and the 'Make my Day' law. Anyone who unlawfully enters your home deserves the consequences.
Especially if, like in JuliusCaesar's case they come into your bedroom- scumbags!

Dudess

I'm torn, given the fabulousness of naming a law after a famous Clint Eastwood line, seemingly without a trace of irony.

token101

No problem with what she did. Young girl, on her own in the house, fair play to her for doing what she needed to do.

Not too sure about the other guy getting charged with murder though. Robbery, attempted murder (for the girl), I could see the logic....but I don't see how he is directly responsible for this shooting.

And her 58 year old husband? Yeah.......but that's another story!!

Liam Byrne

KeithAFC wrote: »

I would question what made this man try to enter the house to commit robbery.

What do you mean "what made him" ?

He chose to. He was wrong to choose so.

He could have avoided being at risk but his choice to be a threatening lawbreaking thug led to his death.

Case closed.

Liam Byrne

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi all,
There was one controversial case in the US where a shopowner, who had previously shot intruders and was well known for stating loudly that he would always be prepared to do so, shot and killed five intruders in one raid on his shop. Two of the raiders were found dead in the shop, bearing frontal wounds. The other three were found outside, bearing back wounds. Whilst he was cleared of a charge of murder by reason of self-defence, he came in for a lot of criticism for shooting the last three, as they were attempting to flee and were no longer a threat to him directly.

There was also a case in Ireland where a knife-armed intruder entered a man's bedroom and was shot with a shotgun. What gripped the gardai was the bloodtrail from the gate back to the bedroom. It was alleged that the intruder had actually died at the gate from the shotgun wound and had been dragged back upstairs by the householder and placed in a suitable position. The householder's wife was said to be traumatised for a long time after.

It's never clear-cut, is it?




regards
Stovepipe

It is. In all cases they were intruders and could have chosen not to do what put them at risk.

No crime = no death.

A lesson hopefully every thug might learn so that they might stop assuming that they can have free reign.

It wasn't me!

Dudess wrote: »

I'm torn, given the fabulousness of naming a law after a famous Clint Eastwood line, seemingly without a trace of irony.

I was assuming that wasn't an official designation, more a popular name which, presumably, can't be mentioned without a wry eyebrow raising and a grin, personally.

Manic Moran

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well I don't really buy into the whole holding the baby argument. She could have easily put the baby down in the corner of the room and went and shot him in a place which would just wound him. Then he would go to prison and possibly learn a valuable lesson.

I am not a cat. I only have one life. There is no 'fair play' award for the loser in combat. You take the risk if you want to. Personally, I choose survival.

Maybe she wasn't trained to use the gun, she's going to aim for the largest target area, the torso

I'm very well trained in firearms. I'd be aiming at the largest area as well. No disrespect to Makikomi, but there are no rules of engagement in such a situation.

NTM

Pedro K

I love all these suggestions that she should've shot him the legs or wounded him etc. It's crazy talk. As mentioned before, even specialist forces like the SAS are trained to shoot centre mass, although they double tap.

Not to mention she was probably scared ****less and had adrenaline flying through her body like the clappers.

Also, she fired a twelve gauge shotgun. Depending on the load, even shooting someone in the leg or arm from close range could cause a fatal wound. From close range certain types of shot fired from a 12 gauge will go straight through and can leave a 5 inch diameter hole. In some instances it could blow a limb clean off.

Still, fair play to her I say.

EDIT: Also, the fact that it was a shotgun would've made it harder for her to get this precision shot to a limb that people are crying out for. Shotgun pellets scatter.

Manic Moran

This story was one of only four firearm-related incidents which hit the news yesterday.

The other three were:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19673879

A 90-year-old Greenbrae man and a burglary suspect were hospitalized with gunshot wounds Wednesday after a confrontation at the victim's home, police said.

The shooting occurred at about 10:45 a.m. at Leone's two-story home in the hills near Highway 101. Police said Cutrufelli entered Leone's home, detained him at gunpoint and searched the residence for property.

Leone, a former member of the Marin County sheriff's air patrol, was able to get one of several guns in his home and shot the suspect. The suspect shot Leone and drove off.

Leone called 911 from his house, and Cutrufelli called 911 from his car, which he stopped on Tiburon Boulevard in San Rafael. Cutrufelli said he had shot himself and needed medical attention, Norton said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/us/texas-shooting/index.html

A 15-year-old student was shot and killed by police after he brandished a weapon in the hallways of a south Texas middle school, officials said Wednesday.

"The student engaged the officers and was shot," the Brownsville Police Department said in a statement.

The weapon turned out to be a pellet gun, CNN affiliate KGBT reported.

But the weapon "certainly convinced the personnel on the scene of its potential threat to them," a Brownsville Police Department spokesman told the affiliate.

(Pictures of the gun in question show it looked a hell of a lot like a semi-auto pistol)

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10559641/

Henderson, N.C. — Vance County deputies have arrested two more men wanted in a fatal Henderson home invasion last week, in which a teenager shot and killed one of the intruders.

Michael Anthony Henderson Jr., 19, is accused of going to the home at 586 S. Lynnbank Road on Thursday, along with his brother and two other men.

A 14-year-old boy and his 17-year-old sister were home at the time, and the boy shot and killed Henderson

[...]

No charges are expected against the teen for firing on Michael Henderson. North Carolina's Castle Doctrine law, updated on Dec. 1, allows homeowners to assume intruders mean them ill whether they have a weapon on not.

Three fairly happy stories, and one Darwin award.

NTM

Morag

hondasam wrote: »

You rang 999 and they transferred you to the local station, is this normal practise?

Yes it is and the 999 operator stays on the line with you until they pick up and the garda is heard to be dealing with the case.

opinion guy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It is. In all cases they were intruders and could have chosen not to do what put them at risk.

No crime = no death.

A lesson hopefully every thug might learn so that they might stop assuming that they can have free reign.

Ok I've lurked here and I've had enough now.

Whatever about this particular case in which it seems the intruders were out to get the girl and she defended herself. I wonder if there is more history to it than this to be honest, but time will tell. I find the pose she is doing on tv looking down the barrel of the gun to be in extremely poor taste I must say. She could have shouted to the intruders she had a gun, she could have said the cops are on the way. Instead she knowingly let them do what they were doing without warning and waited until they came into the house so she could kill legally. If that is not premeditated I don't know what is. This Make my day law should be ammended to mandate you must give a verbal warning.

Anyhow this does NOT mean its ok to just shoot someone who comes into your house. I find it sickening the glorification of this kind of thing that some of you are reveling in. As with the death penatly, there have been tragic mistakes.

This well respected, much loved, contributor to his community was shot dead as an intruder after being walking into the wrong house whilst drunk.
http://www.cbs6albany.com/video/v/84755503001/wrgb-albany-wrgb

Pedro K

opinion guy wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It is. In all cases they were intruders and could have chosen not to do what put them at risk.

No crime = no death.

A lesson hopefully every thug might learn so that they might stop assuming that they can have free reign.

Ok I've lurked here and I've had enough now.

Whatever about this particular case in which it seems the intruders were out to get the girl and she defended herself. I wonder if there is more history to it than this to be honest, but time will tell. I find the pose she is doing on tv looking down the barrel of the gun to be in extremely poor taste I must say. She could have shouted to the intruders she had a gun, she could have said the cops are on the way. Instead she knowingly let them do what they were doing without warning and waited until they came into the house so she could kill legally. If that is not premeditated I don't know what is.This Make my day law should be ammended to mandate you must give a verbal warning.

Anyhow this does NOT mean its ok to just shoot someone who comes into your house. I find it sickening the glorification of this kind of thing that some of you are reveling in. As with the death penatly, there have been tragic mistakes.

This well respected, much loved, contributor to his community was shot dead as an intruder after being walking into the wrong house whilst drunk.
http://www.cbs6albany.com/video/v/84755503001/wrgb-albany-wrgb

And how is it proven whether or not a verbal warning was given? Do you interrogate the lad with the bullet holes?

Sure if the owner has to give a verbal warning to let the intruder now he or she is armed, then maybe the intruder should have to give a verbal warning that they are entering the house....

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok I've lurked here and I've had enough now.

Whatever about this particular case in which it seems the intruders were out to get the girl and she defended herself. I wonder if there is more history to it than this to be honest, but time will tell. I find the pose she is doing on tv looking down the barrel of the gun to be in extremely poor taste I must say. She could have shouted to the intruders she had a gun, she could have said the cops are on the way. Instead she knowingly let them do what they were doing without warning and waited until they came into the house so she could kill legally. If that is not premeditated I don't know what is. This Make my day law should be ammended to mandate you must give a verbal warning.

Anyhow this does NOT mean its ok to just shoot someone who comes into your house. I find it sickening the glorification of this kind of thing that some of you are reveling in. As with the death penatly, there have been tragic mistakes.

This well respected, much loved, contributor to his community was shot dead as an intruder after being walking into the wrong house whilst drunk.
http://www.cbs6albany.com/video/v/84755503001/wrgb-albany-wrgb

I appreciate you opinion but on the last bit - this was NOT a case of a drunken man.
This was two men that (possibly premeditated) consistently was attacking a home FOR 28 MINUTES knowing there was possibly someone in it!
There is NO comparison!

They HAD to have known anyone in there would have had a mobile phone and/or a house phone so help was sooner or later, on the way - YET they still kept up their attack!
..And MAYBE the girl was advised NOT to say anything, you know anything that might further expose her and her son to danger? I'm fairly sure the police would have advised her to take a more pacifist action - not one of basically telling the two intruders "Cooo-eee here I am!" and exposing herself thus to more danger - not less!
*When a bank robber enters a bank - should we all stand up and say "Here I am - here's me wallet!" - or keep our heads down and hope for the best ???

She could have done this - she could have done that... - Armchair speculation!
She did what she felt she HAD to do - when the moment really came - even checking with the police TWICE to do it!
With by the way, the police on the phone advising her ALL the while!
Again - she checked with them more than once as to what to do - I'm sure they were CONTINUOUSLY advising her as they were trying to break in!

You must give a verbal warning?
Absolute NOT!
I could not disagree more!
That would lead to others also being forced to possibly be putting themselves in other compromising positions!

I sorry the man got killed - but I do not weep for him!

opinion guy

Pedro K wrote: »

And how is it proven whether or not a verbal warning was given? Do you interrogate the lad with the bullet holes?

Well in this case - how about listening to the 911 tape where she asks can she shoot him when he comes in ? Did she shout a warning ? Thats presumably on the tape.

Sure if the owner has to give a verbal warning to let the intruder now he or she is armed, then maybe the intruder should have to give a verbal warning that they are entering the house....

By definiton - if you have gone to get a gun to shoot an intruder - you know they are there!

Logic.....its not so hard really :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

This Make my day law should be ammended to mandate you must give a verbal warning.

Why should I be legally mandated to relinquish my single greatest advantage, that of surprise?

If there's anything going for me, it's the fact that I know where I am in my house and the intruder doesn't. Darned if I want to help him out.

NTM

Pedro K

opinion guy wrote: »

Pedro K wrote: »

And how is it proven whether or not a verbal warning was given? Do you interrogate the lad with the bullet holes?

Well in this case - how about listening to the 911 tape where she asks can she shoot him when he comes in ? Did she shout a warning ? Thats presumably on the tape.

Sure if the owner has to give a verbal warning to let the intruder now he or she is armed, then maybe the intruder should have to give a verbal warning that they are entering the house....

By definiton - if you have gone to get a gun to shoot an intruder - you know they are there!

Logic.....its not so hard really :rolleyes:

you may not know the intruder is there until they give the required verbal warning, at which point you get the gun and offer your own verbal warning.

And in this case, yes there's a 911 recording, but you know as well as I do that in many others there is no way to prove if a verbal warning is given. It's a silly idea that lacks any feasibility.

Logic. It's not so hard really.

opinion guy

Biggins wrote: »

I appreciate you opinion but on the last bit - this was NOT a case of a drunken man.
This was two men that (possibly premeditated) consistently was attacking a home FOR 28 MINUTES knowing there was possibly someone in it!
There is NO comparison!

Agreed. These are two different situations. But the same (bad) law applies.

They HAD to have know anyone in there would have had a mobile phone and/or a house phone so help was sooner or later, on the way - YET they still kept up their attack!
..And MAYBE the girl was advised NOT to say anything, you know anything that might further expose her and her son to danger? I'm fairly sure the police would have advised her to take a more pacifist action - not one of basically telling the two intruders "Cooo-eee here I am!" and exposing herself thus to more danger - not less!
*When a bank robber enters a bank - should we all stand up and say "Here I am - here's me wallet!" ???

She could have done this - she could have done that... - Armchair speculation!
She did what she felt she HAD to do - when the moment really came - even checking with the police TWICE to do it!
With by the way, the police on the phone advising her ALL the while!
Again - she checked with them more than once as to what to do - I'm sure they were CONTINUOUSLY advising her as they were trying to break in!

You must give a verbal warning?
Absolute NOT!
I could not disagree more!
That would lead to others also being forced to possibly be putting themselves in other compromising positions!

I sorry the man got killed - but I do not weep for him!

Biggins thats just ridiculous. Shouting "I have a gun and the cops are on their way" would not increase risk to her. It took them half an hour to break in.

By the way - those ARE NOT police on the phone. They are 911 operators. Not police.

You recall the story someone told earlier of stomping up and down the stairs and flashing lights to scare off intruders. Used her head. No need for violence. A verbal warning and a warning shot would have sufficed here.

Of course doubtless its all on the tape - maybe she did warm them we don't know. But abso-f*cking-lutley there should be a warning given before opening fire.

Seriously - some people think we still are in the wild west.

Biggins

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why should I be legally mandated to relinquish my single greatest advantage, that of surprise?

If there's anything going for me, it's the fact that I know where I am in my house and the intruder doesn't. Darned if I want to help him out.

NTM

Amen!

opinion guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why should I be legally mandated to relinquish my single greatest advantage, that of surprise?

If there's anything going for me, it's the fact that I know where I am in my house and the intruder doesn't. Darned if I want to help him out.

NTM

so what you are saying is - you don't want them to get away. You want to kill them.

What if they were a drunk schoolteacher ?
What if they had a car crash and stumbled in off the road dazed and confused ?

Pedro K

Manic Moran wrote: »

opinion guy wrote: »

This Make my day law should be ammended to mandate you must give a verbal warning.

Why should I be legally mandated to relinquish my single greatest advantage, that of surprise?

If there's anything going for me, it's the fact that I know where I am in my house and the intruder doesn't. Darned if I want to help him out.

NTM

There was another thread on a similar matter in which you posted about the tactical advantage of knowing your house and having the element of surprise, particularly in around the stairs. Made for interesting reading. I know I wouldn't want to give up any advantage I have either.

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

By the way - those ARE NOT police on the phone. They are 911 operators. Not police.

Fair enough - but they were still advising her what to do best case scenario!
It was a radio dispatcher by the way - one we can assume was working for the police, they usually do in the states, within the same building and thus (this is even indicated by her choice of ongoing words to the young girl) advised her as what was best to do legally and for her own safety - by possible training and experience!

Mr Kell said one of his dispatchers, Diane Graham, handled the call 911 call.‘I knew she was scared because she was whispering,’ Ms Graham, a 911 dispatcher from the Grady County Sheriff’s Office.

---

opinion guy wrote: »

You recall the story someone told earlier of stomping up and down the stairs and flashing lights to scare off intruders. Used her head. No need for violence. A verbal warning and a warning shot would have sufficed here.

Of course doubtless its all on the tape - maybe she did warm them we don't know. But abso-f*cking-lutley there should be a warning given before opening fire.

Seriously - some people think we still are in the wild west.

If two men are that aggressive to spend 28 full minutes kicking in a house to try and enter - do you seriously think that with they knowing there was only a teenager and her baby in the house, they were going to run away with the flashing of lights and/or a warning that might or might not be true?
They being don't forget, aggressive enough to be even carrying a knife - a big one!
(...And it wasn't for picking their teeth clean with!)

Would you be willing to let your child take that chance if the same thing happened to them?
SERIOUSLY!

Shout out and expose they were there - where there might have been a small chance that the two entering didn't know that they were there?
To shout out, indicating where in the home they were by the way and expose themselves to more possible danger?

Absolute stupidity to do so!

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

so what you are saying is - you don't want them to get away. You want to kill them.

I want to come out of there unharmed.

What if they were a drunk schoolteacher ?

Not my problem.

What if they had a car crash and stumbled in off the road dazed and confused ?

Not my problem.

This may seem a little callous, but forcing someone to put themselves at risk due to the actions of others is, simply, immoral. I know for 100% certainty that I am acting innocently and that my immediate future is in my hands. Attempting to guess the intentions of someone else, or on the off-chance that they may for some reason be semi-incapcitated, increases the risk level unacceptably.

In the most extreme case, a homeowner shot and killed a policeman who was in his back yard investigating a suspected burglary. Acquited. The homeowner is not responsible for things outside of his realm of knowledge.

NTM

Biggins

In real time and when you try to make the best judgement call depending on the occassion - later as the saying goes (and I've used it already) - its better to be judged by 12 than possibly carried by 6 !!!

Icyseanfitz

two guys who had previously been sniffing around trying to break into a young widows house for 28 fcuking minutes 28! (after having her 2 dogs killed and a 3 month old baby) fair play to her, they weren't there to rob anything only cause more misery to the poor girl

Biggins

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

two guys who had previously been sniffing around...

Indeed!

Though McKinley didn't piece things together until after the shooting, she'd had several strange run-ins with 24-year-old Justin Shane Martin. According to CBS News, her mother says that about two years ago, she noticed Martin following McKinley around at a rodeo.

http://jezebel.com/sarah-mckinley/

When she was 16 also!

up for anything

I'd assume two lads of their particular calibre would be aware of the risks they ran in trying to break into a house including that of the householder being more than likely armed. Serves them right. They also knew that she had been widowed only a week earlier and yet they were willing to cause her further grief. Bollix to them! The one lad was obviously after a bit more than the family silver judging from the fact that he had previously 'stalked' her on one occasion and had approached her on the flimsiest of excuses only a few days earlier.:rolleyes:

Biggins

Sarah McKinley and other women refusing victimization recently

Sarah McKinley's husband died on Christmas Day of cancer and by New Year's Eve she was fighting for her own life and that of her 3-month-old son. But the Oklahoma widow isn't the only woman of late to fight back against her potential victimizers, as a West Wendover, Nev. bodybuilder and a Pensacola Fl. woman have done so recently as well.

In McKinley's case, a male intruder attempted to gain unlawful entry into her residence and is now dead as a result, with his companion facing a first-degree murder charge for his participation in the alleged crime.

When the 18-year-old mother realized two men, one wielding a knife, were trying to break into her mobile home in Grady County, the young mother barricaded her door with a couch, put a bottle in her baby's mouth and obtained a 12-gauge and pistol before calling 911.

McKinley then proceeded to get clearance to use the weapons on her soon-to-be assailants if they got in before an officer could get to her to help. 24-year-old Justin Shane Martin entered the residence of the recent widow carrying a knive and was shot to death as he did, according to CBS News.

His alleged accomplice, Dustin Lewis Stewart, aged 29, took off before he could become a victim of McKinley. But he made the mistake of calling 911 afterward to report his friend's shooting, alerting police to his identity and participation in the crime.

Sarah McKinley, however, is only the latest woman to join other females across the country recently who have fought back and won against their victimizers.

In Nevada this week, a woman battled assailants Logan McFarland and Angela Atwood as they attempted to relieve her of her vehicle. She bit the ear and neck of Angela Atwood (a.k.a Angela Hill), and gave the would-be carjacker the boot from her vehicle before managing to flee the scene.

Rattana Keomanivong, the owner of the Animal HouseTraining and Nutrition Center located at 510 N. Mesa St in Wendover, however, was hit by gunfire from Atwood as she fled in her vehicle and rear-ended by McFarland as she attempted to get away. The HeraldExtra reported that she is now recovering from her ordeal privately, since her release Tues., Jan 3 from the hospital where she received treatment.

In Pensacola Florida, 36-year-old Tabbatha Nussbaumer faced a similar situation as McKinley. She was home alone with her 9-year-old son when an intruder, armed with a bow and arrow, entered the home demanding money.

Nussbaumer, who also happened to be an auxiliary Florida Highway Patrol Trooper told the 24-year-old intruder that her money was in her vehicle outside, luring him away from her son and home and to where she kept her weapon, a 9mm glock, according to the Pensacola News Journal.

Nussbaumer fired her weapon and killed 24-year-old Sean Harris after she first warned him to leave once her weapon was in hand. The bow-and-arrow bandit had disrobed as he followed her out of her home and had wrapped his arms around her before licking her face and fondling his penis, leaving no doubt as to his intent in addition to the robbery last fall.

Neither Sarah McKinley or Tabbatha Nussbaumer will face prosecution for protecting themselves and their family with deadly force against their assailants, according to district attorneys in both states this week.

http://www.examiner.com/criminal-profiles-in-national/sarah-mckinley-and-other-women-refusing-victimization-recently

The latter issued a warning - an auxiliary Florida Highway Patrol Trooper - and even THAT was ineffective!
(Never mind just being a teen alone in a house with a 3 month baby!)

Overheal

opinion guy wrote: »

What if they were a drunk schoolteacher ?

Are schoolteachers (albeit drunk ones) afford special protections under the law?

What if they had a car crash and stumbled in off the road dazed and confused ?

As above. I'd also reckon a nearby wreck would have piqued the interest of the homeowner. I'm also sure a car crash victim, in a confused state, would barely have the capacity to break down a front door. The doorbell is also quite a bit more effective.

These examples are highly amusing but also ridiculous. I realize this is AH but come on.

opinion guy

Biggins wrote: »

If two men are that aggressive to spend 28 full minutes kicking in a house to try and enter - do you seriously think that with they knowing there was only a teenager and her baby in the house, they were going to run away with the flashing of lights and/or a warning that might or might not be true?
They being don't forget, aggressive enough to be even carrying a knife - a big one!
(...And it wasn't for picking their teeth clean with!)

You've already said they knew who was in the house. You are aruging against yourself. And yes I think they would ****ing run if they were told she had two guns and fired a warning shot. Wouldn't you armed with a only a knife ?

Would you be willing to let your child take that chance if the same thing happened to them?
SERIOUSLY!

Shout out and expose they were there - where there might have been a small chance that the two entering didn't know that they were there?
To shout out, indicating where in the home they were by the way and expose themselves to more possible danger?

Absolute stupidity to do so!

What difference does it make whether they konw she is there - they were coming in any way.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I want to come out of there unharmed.



Not my problem.



Not my problem.

It is in this country - you would be held accountable. Rightly so. There is no place for shoot first ask questions later.

In the most extreme case, a homeowner shot and killed a policeman who was in his back yard investigating a suspected burglary. Acquited. The homeowner is not responsible for things outside of his realm of knowledge.

NTM

Another example why these lawas are reckless and stupid. This person should have been charged at least.

Overheal wrote: »

Are schoolteachers (albeit drunk ones) afford special protections under the law?

The point is that just because someone is unexpectantly in your house does not mean they are a dangerous criminal

As above. I'd also reckon a nearby wreck would have piqued the interest of the homeowner. I'm also sure a car crash victim, in a confused state, would barely have the capacity to break down a front door. The doorbell is also quite a bit more effective.

These examples are highly amusing but also ridiculous. I realize this is AH but come on.

Um this actually happened.
http://jalopnik.com/319009/dont-shoot-man-shot-after-crashing-car

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

You've already said they knew who was in the house. You are aruging against yourself. And yes I think they would ****ing run if they were told she had two guns and fired a warning shot. Wouldn't you armed with a only a knife ?

I said they possibly by their stalking, might have known the girl was in the house.
Given their level of aggression - by the way to get supposed medication to boot (if we can trust the still alive crook!) - we might be allowed to say they had addiction problems?
Would you be willing to make such a bet and expose yourself further to them than rather stay silent and hope they go away?
Would you make yourself known to an attacking possible addict - possibly two of them - with a big knife to boot?
I don't think so!
(She didn't know apparently AT THE TIME while they were trying to break in, what they might have been carrying? They could have been armed heavier for all she knew!)
Again! Would you be willing to let your child take that chance if the same thing happened to them?
SERIOUSLY!

opinion guy wrote: »

What difference does it make whether they know she is there - they were coming in any way.

I would say it make a hell of a shaggin' BIG difference!
You can't see the difference and the importance of such matters?

Doc Ruby

opinion guy wrote: »

It is in this country - you would be held accountable. Rightly so. There is no place for shoot first ask questions later.

You are quite mistaken, the laws have been recently changed. God alone help the future mysterious bog-mummy archaeological artifact that breaks into my house, because nobody else will.

Ken.

The guy got what he deserved. If he had lived he could have
1. come back with something bigger than a knife
2. Knowing the way America is he would probably have sued the young lady for damages and been awarded millions. Making up some b*ll**** story to make himself seem like he was doing nothing wrong.
Dead scumbag's tell no tale's.