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

Witcher

The people saying 'oh why didn't she shoot him in the leg?' are hilarious, not only would he have likely bled to death slowly anyway but these are the people who would probably have shat themselves and fired every cartridge in the gun when confronted with a burglar:pac:

denballs

SHE shouldve unloaded the gun.....and reloaded ...and kept going.....just to be safe

opinion guy

Doc Ruby wrote: »

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.

They have changed the law but you still have to apply reasonable force. You still can't just gun down someone in your house merely because they are there

Biggins

opinion guy wrote: »

They have changed the law but you still have to apply reasonable force. You still can't just gun down someone in your house merely because they are there

We agree there and I think right - and I wonder if the man in the USA hadn't a weapon, might there have been a different scenario in another county that HADN'T had the law that is protecting the young girl from prosecution.

Again, just hypothetical stuff, this time on my part.

Doc Ruby

opinion guy wrote: »

They have changed the law but you still have to apply reasonable force. You still can't just gun down someone in your house merely because they are there

You're assuming anyone would find them afterwards.

Hahah. Kidding of course.

I agree with the whole reasonable force thing. But in the given circumstances it seems likely that severe personal harm was intended and as such the response was if not reasonable at least understandable.

Biggins

I'm off to bed but one final thought before I do...

The thought just occurred to me (honestly) that if the now dead man had been stalking the girl that much - for two years!!! - then he breaking in finally, had she let him know she was actually there (IF he didn't know already), she would certainly be putting herself at greater risk possibly!
I suspect it wouldn't have ended well for her at all.

Anyway - I'm off to bed!
Back to pester ye all later!
Great debate!

hondasam

Biggins wrote: »

I'm off to bed but one final thought before I do...

The thought just occurred to me (honestly) that if the now dead man had been stalking the girl that much - for two years!!! - then he breaking in finally, had she let him know she was actually there (IF he didn't know already), she would certainly be putting herself at greater risk possibly!
I suspect it wouldn't have ended well for her at all.

Anyway - I'm off to bed!
Back to pester ye all later!
Great debate!

It only occurred to you now. Was he stalking her for two yrs? if he was she definitely knew who was at the door and then it could seem like revenge.

Overheal

opinion guy wrote: »

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

Ok...... do drunk schoolteachers carry 12" hunting blades with them?

Doc Ruby

Overheal wrote: »

Ok...... do drunk schoolteachers carry 12" hunting blades with them?

Clearly you have never met Mr Quinlan, my third year Irish teacher.

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

It is in this country - you would be held accountable.

You may wish to reverify your understanding of current Irish law. Although, perhaps, not as 'loose' as that of some American States, it is far more in favour of the concept of the homeowner's defence than you appear to believe.

Rightly so. There is no place for shoot first ask questions later.

Where I live, the law is codeified so that there are actually two questions which must be answered before a person can be engaged in your house. I have no particular issue with these questions. They are: 1) Has an unlawful entry occured, and 2) Do I have any reason to believe that the person in question is not a threat to me?

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

He was. Hence he was acquitted as the jury found him to be not guilty of the charge.

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

You are correct. But why should I as a householder have to take that risk? I have done nothing wrong that deserves to be penalised and I am, as the saying goes, in my castle.

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

Apparently, it may not have, at least, not in this instance: You'll note that the Jalopnik article gives a few possibilities, and does not claim specifically that the man was dazed and confused. Further research reveals:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2007-11/msg00597.html

SOUTHBURY - A man who fled the scene of a one-car accident was shot and wounded early Sunday morning after a resident found the man in his basement, police said.

State police said John Nagy was awakened about 2 a.m. by a noise in his Berkshire Road home. Nagy went to investigate and found an intruder. When the man made a move toward Nagy, the homeowner shot him, police said.

[snip]

State police called the man a burglary suspect but did not say whether he had been charged.

So, was the burglary suspect/car crash victim charged...?

http://crash.legalview.com/msn/man-charged-after-southbury-car-crash-break-in-and-wounding/708430/

SOUTHBURY, Conn.— State police have arrested a 22-year-old Sharon man who crashed his car in Southbury, broke into a nearby home and was wounded by the homeowner. Justin Alter has been charged with criminal trespassing for the incident

Seems like Mr Nagy, the homeowner in question, has nothing to apologise for.

NTM

Cillian13

Fair play to her but did she marry a 50 something year old when she was 16 or have I read it wrong :P

up for anything

hondasam wrote: »

It only occurred to you now. Was he stalking her for two yrs? if he was she definitely knew who was at the door and then it could seem like revenge.

I seem the remember one of the articles saying that she'd been stalked by him two years ago, not for two years. In some ways that is just as alarming.

Who cares if it seems like revenge! Being menaced in your own home is very frightening especially in a country where home invasion can end very messily and generally not for the invader. I shudder to think what they would have put her through and probably at the very least left her child an orphan especially considering that the police physical response time seems very slow as they still hadn't turned up when she shot him.

Maybe what went through her mind was that if she tried to frighten them off or left them incapacitated that Martin, at least, would be back when she was off her guard or after a prison sentence.

Dude111

I read about this and all i can say is: SHE IS VERY LUCKY SHE AND BABY ARE OK

Splendour

Didn't read all of this thread and maybe this has been mentioned; where were the cops in all of this. She was 21 minutes on the phone with a dispatcher, surely that gave them enough time to get to the scene. Or was it like a typical Hollywood film in which they turn up after the deed is done...

CodeMonkey

up for anything wrote: »

I seem the remember one of the articles saying that she'd been stalked by him two years ago, not for two years. In some ways that is just as alarming.

Stalked her 2 years ago is what the article said. Biggins and others have consistently been mis quoting the article and published facts in favour of the girl using excessive force.

Biggins

hondasam wrote: »

...Was he stalking her for two yrs? if he was she definitely knew who was at the door and then it could seem like revenge.

Looking back in hindsight, it appears that the girls mother seems to think that the daughter was been stalked.
(Probably when she was shown a picture of the now dead man. Kopped on who he was and put the pieces together)
I'm sure the mother after the event, conveyed these thoughts to her daughter - who in an interview also then mentioned that she thought AFTERWARDS, she might have been stalked for a while.

Ms McKinley said she didn’t know who he was until after the shooting, when she pieced everything together.

Det. Huff told KFOR-TV that he and his fellow detectives believe the home invasion to have been ‘premeditated.’

NOT the mother or the daughter thought this - well until afterwards - if they did then!

---

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Stalked her 2 years ago is what the article said. Biggins and others have consistently been mis quoting the article and published facts in favour of the girl using excessive force.

No, some of us have actual looked at the details and an accurate timeline of events.
You can stick your slur "...consistently been mis quoting..." where the sun don't shine!

O' and excessive force my backside!
I would tell any of my children to do exactly the same thing if in a similar situation.

---

Splendour wrote: »

Didn't read all of this thread and maybe this has been mentioned; where were the cops in all of this. She was 21 minutes on the phone with a dispatcher, surely that gave them enough time to get to the scene. Or was it like a typical Hollywood film in which they turn up after the deed is done...

Grady County Sheriff Art Kell told MailOnline that a shooting case like this is rare. ‘Around the state, maybe two to three people get shot,’ he said.
He said there are three deputies to cover the county’s 12,000 square miles, meaning a response could hardly be immediate.

In fact it took them over 28 minutes!

Bandana boy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why not shoot him in the legs?

Even Trained Armed police are told if you discharge your weapon you must aim for the heart.

Bullets go places, you aim for a leg or an arm its easy to miss and you can not be sure where the bullet will end up.

Its also why warning shots are not allowed by armed police here in Ireland

Fear Uladh

No way in hell would the robbers not have returned had there been warning shots fired.

Think of it from her perspective, she was alone with her child while two men with a weapon are trying to break in. WTF would you do?

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

No, some of us have actual looked at the details and an accurate timeline of events.
You can stick your slur where the sun don't shine!

You have on at least 2 occasions mis quoted facts in favour of the girl using excessive force. I think I have a much better handle on the story in a non emotional way than you. You act like it's your daughter being attacked and can't see this in a logically manner. That's fine but that doesn't mean I have to take your crap when you are insulting towards my opinion.

Liam Byrne

opinion guy wrote: »

Anyhow this does NOT mean its ok to just shoot someone who comes into your house.

No - it means that it's not OK to enter the house. if the ****wits and thugs got that into their thick heads they get to stay alive - just like the rest of us.

It's not like we're brainwashing them into breaking in so that we can have shooting practice - in fact, we'd be perfectly happy if they stayed in their own homes.

The choice is theirs.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You have on at least 2 occasions mis quoted facts in favour of the girl using excessive force. I think I have a much better handle on the story in a non emotional way than you. You act like it's your daughter being attacked and can't see this in a logically manner. That's fine but that doesn't mean I have to take your crap when you are insulting towards my opinion.

I'm insulting your opinion!
You just basically outright called me (and others) liars in sulphurous wording!
Ironic!

..And again, I suggest you look at the actual timeline of events, those involved and their AFTERWARDS piecing the facts together to come to some conclusions - AFTERWARDS!

hooradiation

Oh no, biggins has been offended!

shit is getting real tedious!

CodeMonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No - it means that it's not OK to enter the house. if the ****wits and thugs got that into their thick heads they get to stay alive - just like the rest of us.

It's not like we're brainwashing them into breaking in so that we can have shooting practice - in fact, we'd be perfectly happy if they stayed in their own homes.

The choice is theirs.

Really? What if it's not a teen mom in the house? If that was just a man, being targeted for a burglary, it's ok for him to shoot intruders dead without any warning that he is in possession of some firearm? Thug got it coming for trespassing and banging on the door in an agressive way for 20+ mins? Really? That's acceptable? Is there a different rule for when there's a baby in the house? A teen mom?

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

I'm insulting your opinion!
You just basically outright called me (and others) liars in sulphurous wording!
Ironic!

..And again, I suggest you look at the actual timeline of events, those involved and their AFTERWARDS piecing the facts together to come to some conclusions - AFTERWARDS!

No, I said you mis quoted and yes you have facts mixed up in your emotional head. You really want me to go back and quote you on stuff you got wrong? I suggest you stopping getting so emotional. SHE IS NOT YOUR DAUGHTER...no matter how proud you are of her gunning down an intruder.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Really? What if it's not a teen mom in the house? If that was just a man, being targeted for a burglary, it's ok for him to shoot intruders dead without any warning that he is in possession of some firearm? Thug got it coming for trespassing and banging on the door in an agressive way for 20+ mins? Really? That's acceptable? Is there a different run for when there's a baby in the house? A teen mom?

Nice short version there!
Just missing a few details - like he had a possible weapon - he was NOT on his own - the other person was attacking the house from the back - he was 28 minutes doing it so was no casual caller - that the girl asked twice 'was it ok to shoot?' (thus indicating she knew there would be consequences - but still feared enough to still eventually fire!

...you know, things like that - which would put the fear of god alone in to a young girl - with a baby or not!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

No, I said you mis quoted and yes you have facts mixed up in your emotional head. You really want me to go back and quote you on stuff you got wrong? I suggest you stopping getting so emotional. SHE IS NOT YOUR DAUGHTER...no matter how proud you are of her gunning down an intruder.

Again, look at the timeline of events and those that were able to see things better after the event.
Its all explained in any number of available articles on the net!
Go read up on them. I did.

I apologise if I do get emotional, I have three daughters and would hope they too would defend themselves in such a manner as was befitting a situation.
I certainly would NOT think any less of them!

Biggins

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh no, biggins has been offended!

shit is getting real tedious!

Says the man that says in another thread:

But I loathe my fellow man and I want to see them suffer so...

Forgive me if I don't regard your opinion of people too seriously!

Jaxxy

Wow, I would hope to have a modicum of her composure and self-possession in a similar situation! Fair play to her.

I can only assume that the posters in this thread who are berating her for using excessive force don't have children themselves. Most people would do absolutely anything and everything in their power to ensure their child's safety.

She was justified to do what she did in my book. You don't kill someone's dogs and spend twenty minutes at 2pm trying to enter one house when all you want is to steal a TV or get your hands on the good China. Definitely something more sinister going on there.

Show Time

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why not shoot him in the legs?

Would you do the same in your own house?:rolleyes:

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

Nice short version there!
Just missing a few details - like he had a possible weapon - he was NOT on his own - the other person was attacking the house from the back - he was 28 minutes doing it so was no casual caller - that the girl asked twice 'was it ok to shoot?' (thus indicating she knew there would be consequences - but still feared enough to still eventually fire!

...you know, things like that - which would put the fear of god alone in to a young girl - with a baby or not!

Again, look at the timeline of events and those that were able to see things better after the event.
Its all explained in any number of available articles on the net!
Go read up on them. I did.

Well, you have important facts muddled up to justify in your head this is all she could do and it's not excessive.

Biggins wrote: »

...And it wasn't JUST about the baby, it was a young girl fearing for her life - knowing a man that was previously staking her - was outside.

And then later you basically said she was stalked for 2 years when the article says otherwise. So I am not sure you know the story as well as you think you do.

I also don't really care that that she shot some intruder dead. It's fine, I am sure he won't be missed. I know the timeline and I disagree with you and others justification that this is the only thing anyone in this situation could've done. Can someone disagree with you without you being insulting in your reply and basically call my opinion daft?

Liam Byrne

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No - it means that it's not OK to enter the house. if the ****wits and thugs got that into their thick heads they get to stay alive - just like the rest of us.

It's not like we're brainwashing them into breaking in so that we can have shooting practice - in fact, we'd be perfectly happy if they stayed in their own homes.

The choice is theirs.

Really? What if it's not a teen mom in the house? If that was just a man, being targeted for a burglary, it's ok for him to shoot intruders dead without any warning that he is in possession of some firearm? Thug got it coming for trespassing and banging on the door in an agressive way for 20+ mins? Really? That's acceptable? Is there a different rule for when there's a baby in the house? A teen mom?

Where did I say there was a different rule ?

If someone CHOOSES to break into a house they can live with the consequences.

Or - and here's a novel idea - they can choose not to break into a house.

BTW - love the "just a man" sexism......if 2 thugs with knives (why did your summary neglect to mention that ever-so-minor detail?) break into a house it doesn't make much of a difference what sex the legal occupant (and only person with any right to be there) is.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

And then later you basically said she was stalked for 2 years when the article says otherwise. So I am not sure you know the story as well as you think you do.

I also don't really care that that she shot some intruder dead. It's fine, I am sure he won't be missed. I know the timeline and I disagree with you and others justification that this is the only thing anyone in this situation could've done. Can someone disagree with you without you being insulting in your reply and basically call my opinion daft?

I stated earlier that I think that I had corrected myself on one or two points - I did.
As someone else pointed out (and its in the many articles available), the mother stated to the media that she became saw the pieces fit together afterwards, and became more aware of the man.

Your free to disagree - fair enough.
I don't insult your opinion - I dislike you cleverly espousing that some of us are lying.

QUESTION!
What should she have done?
You seem to think there was a better way - what was it?

All I read is:
"She shouldn't have done this, she shouldn't have done that... bla... bla.. " by desktop experts?
What we don't see is any further REALISTIC other things she could have done!

CodeMonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

BTW - love the "just a man" sexism......if 2 thugs with knives (why did your summary neglect to mention that ever-so-minor detail?) break into a house it doesn't make much of a difference what sex the legal occupant (and only person with any right to be there) is.

It's not sexism on my part. I am just wondering if people are as understanding if she wasn't a teen mom. You are of course free to mis-intepret what i've said.

You are also basically saying that it's ok to use deadly force, shotgun to the chest, on someone acting in an agressive manner in a property they are tespassing on.

Did she see the man brandishing the knives? Does she know the other guy at the back was armed? Was that mentioned on any articles? Did she fire as soon as door was kicked down regardless if she saw a weapon? Yes it matters because intruder could just be an idiotic thug with no weapon and she fired in a panic as option 1. Again, if it's not a teen mom with a baby then would shotgun to the chest not seem excessive?

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

QUESTION!
What should she have done?
You seem to think there was a better way - what was it?

There's no mention wether or not the thugs were given verbal warning that she was armed and will be shot if they break in. She could've fired warning shots with the pistol to make sure they know she's serious, it will buy time for the police arrive.

All I read is:
"She shouldn't have done this, she shouldn't have done that... bla... bla.. " by desktop experts?
What we don't see is any further REALISTIC other things she could have done!

Jesus. And all I hear is there is nothing else she could've done. THis and this would've happened if she didn't fire. The a-hole with the knive who kicked down the door must die. Think about the baby and the poor widowed teen mom....by desktop experts on breakins on teen moms. You got a lot of real life experience on such situations? You not also a desktop expert?

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

There's no mention wether or not the thugs were given verbal warning that she was armed and will be shot if they break in. She could've fired warning shots with the pistol to make sure they know she's serious, it will buy time for the police arrive.

On that point - its been gone over by myself and others already - to high detail and many points.
We disagree with your view.

CodeMonkey wrote: »

...You got a lot of real life experience on such situations? You not also a desktop expert?

I can't tell you what I am. I do know about firearms, handled them, have been shot at and bombed, hospitalised due to attack.
...But even that does not put myself in HER situation.
She dealed with it as fitting she could - even with possible advice LIVE on the phone!

And we are STILL waiting to hear what you would have done that would be so correct!

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

On that point - its been gone over by myself and others already - to high detail and many points.
We disagree with your view.

Yeah, and just because you disagree means that it's an invalid option right? You see her as a saint, protected her baby, no other scenarios I can come up with you will see any hope of working. Why ask?

I can't tell you what I am. I do know about firearms, handled them, have been shot at and bombed, hospitalised due to attack.
...But even that does not put myself in HER situation.

No it doesn't but thanks for the background on your own situation. I certainly should put more weight on your opinion now and don't see you as a desktop expert. Thank you.

She dealed with it as fitting she could - even with possible advice LIVE on the phone!

And we are STILL waiting to hear what you would have done that would be so correct!

Probably nothing else a paniced teen mom could realistically have done. That was never my issue. I'm just wondering why shotgun in the chest doesn't seem excessive? Again, is it because she's a teen mom with a baby?

opinion guy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No - it means that it's not OK to enter the house. if the ****wits and thugs got that into their thick heads they get to stay alive - just like the rest of us.

It's not like we're brainwashing them into breaking in so that we can have shooting practice - in fact, we'd be perfectly happy if they stayed in their own homes.

The choice is theirs.

You havne't been paying attention. Sometimes the intruders AREN'T criminals. We've had several examples over the last few pages. Its NOT ok to just shoot people on sight regardless of situation.

Manic Moran wrote:

You are correct. But why should I as a householder have to take that risk? I have done nothing wrong that deserves to be penalised and I am, as the saying goes, in my castle.

But this is really the nub of the issue isn't it. You, and those who share your opinion, WANT to shoot people.

Its not anything to do with self-defence. Its tribalism pure and simple. This is MY castle and how dare you be here! You don't care why they are there - merely the fact that they are here at all - in your space is good enough reason for you to shoot them, eh ? Hence we have a cop shot in a back yard and a harmless lost school teacher shot in someones house.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Yeah, and just because you disagree means that it's an invalid option right?

No - its one some disagree with.
One area your trying to rehash again?

CodeMonkey wrote: »

You see her as a saint, protected her baby...

Where have I awarded her a halo?
I do agree she protected her baby!

CodeMonkey wrote: »

...I certainly should put more weight on your opinion now and don't see you as a desktop expert. Thanks you.

Your welcome.
(I looked up how to be sarcastic too!)

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Probably nothing else a paniced teen mom could realistically done. That was never my issue. I'm just wondering why shotgun in the chest doesn't seem excessive? Again, is it because she's a teen mom with a baby?

In MY opinion she shot him in the chest because its was the easiest place to shot him - this point alone has been gone over extensively.
...And if you mean, should she have shot him at all?

Well if two attackers are that determined to spend a near half hour breaking in, in possible knowledge that she and baby was in there, they are not just popping in for a cup of tea and be so pleasant to her!
She had the LEGAL right also to defend her home.
The two older men should have been aware of this - they even came with a big knife maybe for such a defence?

opinion guy

CodeMonkey wrote: »

and she fired in a panic as option 1.

No way was she panicked - did you listen to the tape ? She knows exactly what she was doing. I also feel she knew how to handle the weapons. She could handle a pistol and shotgun at once presumably including loading and taking the safety off and hit her target with one shot. People are assuming because she is a girl she couldn't possibly know what she was doing. I dare say most 18 year old girls living in the stix like that know how to handle weapons

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

In MY option she shot him in the chest because its was the easiest place to shot him - this point alone has been gone over extensively.
...And if you mean, should she have shot him at all?

No, I am asking why are people saying this is always the right option regardless of the situation of the house owner. Would you quit being so damn defensive towards that teen moms actions. She killed an intruder, daddies everywhere who are protective of their daughters rejoice.

Well if two attackers are that determined to spend a near half hour breaking in, in possible knowledge that she and baby was in there, they are not just popping in for a cup of tea and be so pleasant to her!
She had the LEGAL right also to defend her home.
The two older men should have been aware of this - they even came with a big knife!

Which means what exactly? Are criminals with weapons breaking into a place always just looking for an excuse to use the weapons? It's always ok for home owners to shoot first?

CodeMonkey

opinion guy wrote: »

No way was she panicked - did you listen to the tape ? She knows exactly what she was doing. I also feel she knew how to handle the weapons. She could handle a pistol and shotgun at once presumably including loading and taking the safety off and hit her target with one shot. People are assuming because she is a girl she couldn't possibly know what she was doing. I dare say most 18 year old girls living in the stix like that know how to handle weapons

Knew the consequences too. Got permission for it. In a distressed state and shaking afterwards cause it's the first person she killed. Was she actually physically threatened with the knife? No one cares cause she's got a baby and is seen as vulnerable.

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

No, I am asking why are people saying this is always the right option regardless of the situation of the house owner.

Its a fair question - one I'm glad you got to finally wording.

All we CAN say is that she did what she did, did what she though was right, after fearing like hell (I assume) for herself and her baby, after taking 21 minutes of possible advice and then possibly saying a prayer or two, after 28 minutes of what was possibly pure terror, defended herself as best she could.

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Which means what exactly? Are criminals with weapons breaking into a place always just looking for an excuse to use the weapons? It's always ok for home owners to shot first?

If anyone breaks into a home with a possible weapon, they sure as heck are not carrying it to break in and cut a loaf!
If they are met by a better defensive weapon, well in my mind by crossing a legal threshold, they bring about their own consequences of their actions.

The girl feared for her consequences - a damn pity the two that were breaking in didn't!
One might still be alive if he had!

CodeMonkey

Biggins wrote: »

The girl feared for her consequences - a damn pity the two that were breaking in didn't!
One might still be alive if he had!

Would they possibly not have feared for their own consequences if they are given warnings about how well armed the girl was? The 2 thugs probably thought she was just an unarmed vulnerable girl with no way of protecting herself. Just like you see her as very vulnerable. If they knew she was armed, is it not conceivable that they'd go away?

Biggins

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Would they possibly not have feared for their own consequences if they are given warnings about how well armed the girl was? The 2 thugs probably thought she was just an unarmed vulnerable girl with no way of protecting herself. If they knew she was armed, is it not conceivable that they'd go away?

From what we can possibly conclude NOW, is that they were aware of the girl and her situation for some time.
I'm assuming that after a possible two years of (again) possible stalking, one of the two at least might have learned that there could be weapon in the home belonging to someone?

...And still they came... with a knife for some reason!

Logical Fallacy

CodeMonkey wrote: »

There's no mention wether or not the thugs were given verbal warning that she was armed and will be shot if they break in. She could've fired warning shots with the pistol to make sure they know she's serious, it will buy time for the police arrive.

Alternatively the guy was holding a knife because it was the quieter option, upon hearing gunshots he thinks he is underfire and draws a firearm himself, as done the guy in back and the woman or her child are killed.

If we are gonna venture circumstance where the guys lived we should also venture circumstance where the woman and child die.

stupidusername

Biggins wrote: »

If anyone breaks into a home with a possible weapon, they sure as heck are not carrying it to break in and cut a loaf!

The operative word being possible.


did she know that one of them had a knife?

She had two guns, they had one knife. They knew guns are legal in America, so it's possible she had one. If they only had a knife, and then she'd fired a warning shot, I very much doubt they would have continued trying to gain entry. So I agree that she should've fired a warning shot.

besides that, I would've thought it'd be more what a person would want to do, to try scare them off, rather than waiting till they got into her home. I sure as **** wouldn't be waiting.

Liam Byrne

opinion guy wrote: »

You havne't been paying attention. Sometimes the intruders AREN'T criminals. We've had several examples over the last few pages. Its NOT ok to just shoot people on sight regardless of situation.

What ?????

Where did I mention shooting anyone on sight or ones who aren't criminals ?

I specifically mentioned the phrase "breaking in".

We're not talking the electricity meter reader or postman here.

Biggins

stupidusername wrote: »

The operative word being possible.
did she know that one of them had a knife?

Well if they were breaking into the house, I assume they used the knife in the onslaught.
I suspect they just didn't keep it in their belt while they clawed away at the house with their bare hands!
So she might have been aware of it and mentioned in on the fuller 21 minute help phone call?

stupidusername wrote: »

She had two guns, they had one knife. They knew guns are legal in America, so it's possible she had one. If they only had a knife, and then she'd fired a warning shot, I very much doubt they would have continued trying to gain entry. So I agree that she should've fired a warning shot.

They were very determined - so determined that they attacked the house for 28 minutes and thought to bring a big knife.
The conditions and consequences of her just blasting away inside and out have already been discussed extensively.

opinion guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Apparently, it may not have, at least, not in this instance: You'll note that the Jalopnik article gives a few possibilities, and does not claim specifically that the man was dazed and confused. Further research reveals:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2007-11/msg00597.html



So, was the burglary suspect/car crash victim charged...?

http://crash.legalview.com/msn/man-charged-after-southbury-car-crash-break-in-and-wounding/708430/



Seems like Mr Nagy, the homeowner in question, has nothing to apologise for.

NTM

No know what - there is something strange about this story - its seems to have been removed from most sites carrying the story. But I remember the story at the time - they story was first reported as him being an innocent guy dazed from an accident but he turned out to have cause the accident or something and on the run. But whats strange to me is that the story has been simply removed rather than ammended. Thats very f**king disturbing if you ask me. A raft of news sites all removing the same story ?? That seems dark to me.

He was. Hence he was acquitted as the jury found him to be not guilty of the charge.

That's absolutely disgraceful. Guy should have been sent down. Part of a cops job is to chase the bad guys - sometimes that means intruding on private property. No way in hell should cops come under fire from random home-owners whilst doing there job.
Has it occured to you that this sets a precedent ? Any scumbag who shoots the cops who are investigating him and call to his house could state they thought they were intruders and quote the above case.

stupidusername

Biggins wrote: »

Well if they were breaking into the house, I assume they used the knife in the onslaught.
I suspect they just didn't keep it in their belt while they clawed away at the house with their bare hands!
So she might have been aware of it and mentioned in on the fuller 21 minute help phone call?


They were very determined - so determined that they attacked the house for 28 minutes and thought to bring a big knife.
The conditions and consequences of her just blasting away inside and out have already been discussed extensively.

are you saying they must've been stabbing the house to try get in?? :pac: She might have been aware of it, but that makes for even more of a case against her not firing a warning shot!

So determined they chose to bring a knife, and not a gun.

I read the extensive discussion on why not blast away inside the house, but none of the reasons are good enough. surely your instinct is to do whatever you can to keep the intruders away from you and your baby, so why not try scare them, instead of waiting till they get into the house?

Logical Fallacy

opinion guy wrote: »

That's absolutely disgraceful. Guy should have been sent down. Part of a cops job is to chase the bad guys - sometimes that means intruding on private property. No way in hell should cops come under fire from random home-owners whilst doing there job.
Has it occured to you that this sets a precedent ? Any scumbag who shoots the cops who are investigating him and call to his house could state they thought they were intruders and quote the above case.

Well, in America at least when the cops call to your door with a reason to enter they have to announce that they are the cops.