If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Atlanta Journal Constitution)   "When you got five bullets in you, it makes you kind of disoriented"   (ajc.com) divider line 348
    More: Scary, gunshots, Gwinnett County  
•       •       •

9282 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2013 at 12:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



348 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-05 12:30:18 AM
The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area

Nice shootin' Tex!
 
2013-01-05 12:32:48 AM
i1079.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-05 12:41:14 AM
To bullet
 
2013-01-05 12:45:37 AM

""The guy's face down, crying," the sheriff said. The woman told him to stay down or she'd shoot again.

Slater, unaware that she had emptied her chamber, obliged as the mother and her children ran to a neighbor's house."


I guess that punk didn't feel lucky.


3.bp.blogspot.com

 
2013-01-05 12:46:16 AM
TWSS.
 
2013-01-05 12:46:54 AM

fusillade762: The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area

Nice shootin' Tex!


Also FTA: But Slater was still conscious.

Meh. Good thing her kids weren't in the way.
 
2013-01-05 12:47:30 AM
Protip:

Aim center of mass next time

/Glad the family is safe
 
2013-01-05 12:48:36 AM
There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.
 
2013-01-05 12:49:34 AM
I'm surprised the Fark modmins greenlighted this. Responsible person with a gun, home intruder, self defense.....BAN THE GUNZ derp
 
2013-01-05 12:50:37 AM
And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.
 
2013-01-05 12:51:55 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.


Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.
 
2013-01-05 12:53:06 AM

Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.


A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.
 
2013-01-05 12:53:38 AM

KidneyStone: I'm surprised the Fark modmins greenlighted this. Responsible person with a gun, home intruder, self defense.....BAN THE GUNZ derp


Thanks for making that incomprehensible point.
 
2013-01-05 12:53:39 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.


So a Glock would have made her a monster then?
 
2013-01-05 12:53:49 AM
Of course, if she'd had a real gun he wouldn't have survived 5 shots to the head/neck.
 
2013-01-05 12:54:27 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.


Notice however that she didnt need an AR-15 to defend her home.
 
2013-01-05 12:55:06 AM

HighZoolander: Of course, if she'd had a real gun he wouldn't have survived 5 shots to the head/neck.


Nothing wrong with a .38 as long as you use the right ammunition.

/I like the +P FBI load but the +P NY load is good also
 
2013-01-05 12:57:11 AM
like the shocker.jpg
but not quite like the heartattacker.jpg
and not like...

oh, bullets.,. ouch
 
2013-01-05 12:58:35 AM
To poe/ullet
 
2013-01-05 12:59:53 AM

Ima4nic8or: Holocaust Agnostic: There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.

Notice however that she didnt need an AR-15 to defend her home.


Yeah but if she had used one there wouldn't have been a ton of money wasted in the ER on the guy plus court costs and cost of jail time.
 
2013-01-05 01:01:06 AM
While reading: "On what planet does a guy persistently knocking on the door mean 'get the kids and hide'"?
After reading: "Well, fark America."
 
2013-01-05 01:03:03 AM
Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.
 
2013-01-05 01:04:36 AM
"Mother of Two Surprises"

That's my favorite at the local dim sum place.
 
2013-01-05 01:05:06 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


notsureifserious.gif
 
2013-01-05 01:06:30 AM
Deputies found Slater bleeding profusely in a neighbor's driveway.

"I'm dying. Help me," he told them, according to Chapman.


The deputies should have said, "sure, we will get right on that in a few hours."
 
2013-01-05 01:07:47 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


www.troll.me
 
2013-01-05 01:08:06 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things

. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.



So you're more a fan of the "Mother raped while children forced to watch" headlines type of guy, eh?
 
2013-01-05 01:08:16 AM

Ima4nic8or: Holocaust Agnostic: There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.

Notice however that she didnt need an AR-15 to defend her home.


Nice try, twerp.

/you still aren't getting them
//ever
 
2013-01-05 01:08:29 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


0/10.
 
2013-01-05 01:08:54 AM
Burglar knocks on door.

Lady doesn't answer the door.

Instead she calls hers husband. "Should I answer the door?"

Husband says, "No, pretend nobody is home."

Burglar thinks, "Nobody's home!"

Hilarity ensues.
 
2013-01-05 01:09:10 AM
"When you got five bullets in you, it makes you kind of disoriented"

Probably, yeah.
 
2013-01-05 01:09:35 AM

Flakeloaf: While reading: "On what planet does a guy persistently knocking on the door mean 'get the kids and hide'"?
After reading: "Well, fark America."


I think you missed one aspect. He continued to knock (probably pound) on the door after she yelled at the kids not to answer. Any normal person would not be doing that. A simple burgler would knock but would then leave upon hearing someone inside.
 
2013-01-05 01:09:49 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,
 
2013-01-05 01:11:48 AM
Knock knock....
*no answer*
_call hubby at work_ "hide the kids" (hubby calls 911)
...hubby expecting trouble?
 
2013-01-05 01:12:10 AM

vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,


If you live in a civilized country where people don't blow each other away for standing outside an outhouse, turn to 318.

If you live in a barren wasteland without a functioning shred of humanity, turn to 83.
 
2013-01-05 01:12:11 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


He absolutely deserves it. He was a threat to the lives of the homeowner and her children. No sympathy here. He pounded on the door even after the women shouted at her kids not to answer it. He knew someone was home when he broke in.
 
2013-01-05 01:12:38 AM
Unimpressed:

synconation.com
 
2013-01-05 01:13:49 AM

hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.


No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.
 
2013-01-05 01:14:21 AM
Just because you can shoot somebody in the face for forcibly invading your home, doesn't mean you should.
 
2013-01-05 01:15:03 AM

Ima4nic8or: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

He absolutely deserves it. He was a threat to the lives of the homeowner and her children. No sympathy here. He pounded on the door even after the women shouted at her kids not to answer it. He knew someone was home when he broke in.


Prove he heard her.
Yeah in all good sense you're more likely right than wrong, but reasonable doubt is a higher burden than that. The article doesn't say he threatened her, but it doesn't say he didn't know anyone was home either.
 
2013-01-05 01:15:20 AM
Moral of the story? Don't BnE lest you DIA.
 
2013-01-05 01:15:53 AM
Guess which one is going to jail for this completely unprovoked attack?
 
2013-01-05 01:16:40 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.


Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.
 
2013-01-05 01:16:54 AM
"Stay down" she tells him...
 
2013-01-05 01:18:07 AM

iq_in_binary: 5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.


Isn't better that he is not dead? Less paperwork.
 
2013-01-05 01:18:35 AM

Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.


Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.
 
HBK
2013-01-05 01:19:02 AM

the_chief: Just because you can shoot somebody in the face for forcibly invading your home, doesn't mean you should.


Why not?
 
2013-01-05 01:20:01 AM

Flakeloaf: vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

If you live in a civilized country where people don't blow each other away for standing outside an outhouse, turn to 318.

If you live in a barren wasteland without a functioning shred of humanity, turn to 83.


Turn to page 95 if you have the dignity and honor to not steal from or harm anyone else even if you're starving.

Jackass.
 
2013-01-05 01:20:25 AM

Fail in Human Form: Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.

Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.


The presumption that someone being in your house intends to start murdering all humanity in a twenty yard radius is what's ridiculous here. The fact that someone codified it doesn't make it any less stupid.
 
2013-01-05 01:20:26 AM
media.cmgdigital.com

If he broke into a house I got no sympathy for the guy but this seems fishy, including the sheriff's enthusiastic acceptance of her story.
 
2013-01-05 01:21:03 AM

Sherman Potter:

Nice try, twerp.

/you still aren't getting them
//ever


Aren't you precious.
 
2013-01-05 01:21:10 AM

Harry_Seldon: iq_in_binary: 5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

Isn't better that he is not dead? Less paperwork.


Depending on the state, dead men's families don't sue for pain and suffering. Live men and their families do it all the time.

So no, actually, not less paperwork. More exposure to having your life ruined despite being the victim of a traumatic crime.
 
2013-01-05 01:21:10 AM

iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.


What about 9x18 makarov?
 
2013-01-05 01:21:12 AM

Flakeloaf: Ima4nic8or: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

He absolutely deserves it. He was a threat to the lives of the homeowner and her children. No sympathy here. He pounded on the door even after the women shouted at her kids not to answer it. He knew someone was home when he broke in.

Prove he heard her.
Yeah in all good sense you're more likely right than wrong, but reasonable doubt is a higher burden than that. The article doesn't say he threatened her, but it doesn't say he didn't know anyone was home either.


Fortunately for her she didnt need to show he is guilty of anything to defend herself. Doesnt much matter whether he is classified as a home invader or not, the only apparent alternative the woman had was to just trust that he wasnt going to hurt her or her kids (not a bet I would take). There is little information on the layout of the space but it sounds like she was pretty much backed in a corner with no way out and was facing a bad guy.
 
HBK
2013-01-05 01:21:19 AM

Harry_Seldon: iq_in_binary: 5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

Isn't better that he is not dead? Less paperwork.


You're actually wrong on that point. It's more paperwork. Taking a person into custody and trying them for their crime is a lot more paperwork than sending the criminal to the morgue.

/buddy shot a guy who broke into his house. Cops told him that they wished he'd killed him for this and other reasons.
 
2013-01-05 01:21:24 AM

Loaded Six String: Flakeloaf: vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

If you live in a civilized country where people don't blow each other away for standing outside an outhouse, turn to 318.

If you live in a barren wasteland without a functioning shred of humanity, turn to 83.

Turn to page 95 if you have the dignity and honor to not steal from or harm anyone else even if you're starving.

Jackass.


So he wasn't shot because he was threatening, he was shot because in your view he's subhuman?

Usually when you move the goalposts, it's TOWARDS the ball.
 
2013-01-05 01:22:49 AM

Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.


People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.
 
2013-01-05 01:23:12 AM

Flakeloaf: Fail in Human Form: Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.

Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

The presumption that someone being in your house intends to start murdering all humanity in a twenty yard radius is what's ridiculous here. The fact that someone codified it doesn't make it any less stupid.


Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.
 
2013-01-05 01:23:35 AM

the_chief: Just because you can shoot somebody in the face for forcibly invading your home, doesn't mean you should.


Yes you should.
 
2013-01-05 01:24:29 AM

Flakeloaf: Loaded Six String: Flakeloaf: vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

If you live in a civilized country where people don't blow each other away for standing outside an outhouse, turn to 318.

If you live in a barren wasteland without a functioning shred of humanity, turn to 83.

Turn to page 95 if you have the dignity and honor to not steal from or harm anyone else even if you're starving.

Jackass.

So he wasn't shot because he was threatening, he was shot because in your view he's subhuman?

Usually when you move the goalposts, it's TOWARDS the ball.


He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved. I do not like to depend on the good intentions of people who break into my house. If you disagree, that's your right and you're free to continue to be unarmed. I will not be.

/Thankfully my girl is as pro gun as I am and I've taught her to shoot pretty much everything I own
 
2013-01-05 01:25:27 AM

vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,


Lessee...

Since you keep guns in your bathroom, you're drinking beer at 3 a.m. and stumbling to the outhouse in the middle of the night, I'm guessing that this story ends with you hearing the cat fighting a raccoon, you grabbing the nearest firearm (probably a sawed-off 30-30), lunging for the door and forgetting you have your pants around your ankles, falling facedown into the mud at the entrance of the outhouse with the shotgun between your knees, the blast blows off your left big toe, and the recoil clips your balls, leaving you swearing and limping back to the house bleeding and with a burn it's going to be tough to explain to your wife.

But the raccoon gets away.
 
2013-01-05 01:25:30 AM

Ima4nic8or: Flakeloaf: Ima4nic8or: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

He absolutely deserves it. He was a threat to the lives of the homeowner and her children. No sympathy here. He pounded on the door even after the women shouted at her kids not to answer it. He knew someone was home when he broke in.

Prove he heard her.
Yeah in all good sense you're more likely right than wrong, but reasonable doubt is a higher burden than that. The article doesn't say he threatened her, but it doesn't say he didn't know anyone was home either.

Fortunately for her she didnt need to show he is guilty of anything to defend herself. Doesnt much matter whether he is classified as a home invader or not, the only apparent alternative the woman had was to just trust that he wasnt going to hurt her or her kids (not a bet I would take). There is little information on the layout of the space but it sounds like she was pretty much backed in a corner with no way out and was facing a bad guy.


Like yelling "Get the fark out of my house!" and giving him three steamboats to decide what to do next? Cause that seems a lot more reasonable than ending someone's life for breaking in and taking some property.

But I wasn't there so I can't say what happened. Maybe he saw her and raised his weapon, or pulled out his dick, or reached for a sword and said he was Inigo Montoya, or gave her a whole host of reasons to have a reasonable fear of death. None of that is mentioned in the article. From the way it's written, she hides in the closet, he finds her, pop pop.
 
2013-01-05 01:25:33 AM
This will in no way devolve into a troll thread about guns.
 
2013-01-05 01:26:07 AM
There are just some things you dont do, even if you are a crim. You dont tug on supermans cape, you dont spit into the wind, you dont pull the mask off that ole lone ranger and you dont break into occupied homes.
 
2013-01-05 01:26:09 AM

Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.


Happened to my family growing up. I posted the story here before. He started knocking and then got more violent when my father wouldn't let him in. Lucky for him he couldn't get the door knocked down (thought he damn near did), otherwise he'd be 6 ft under right now.
 
2013-01-05 01:26:36 AM

Loaded Six String: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

What about 9x18 makarov?


Is actually less powerful than .380 ACP, therefore under the threshold. I go by muzzle energy on average. Anything more than 350 or so ft/lbf is above the threshold for  semi-auto pistols.
 
2013-01-05 01:27:03 AM

iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.


Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you.

Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.


You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't.

Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.


So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.
 
2013-01-05 01:27:36 AM
What bugs me is why she needed to shoot 5 times. Gun control ain't about gun possession. Seems sorta inhumane to shoot five times to the face. Thinks ammo is semi wad cutter 158 grain soft lead @ 725 feet per second. 9mm is unimpressed.
 
2013-01-05 01:28:36 AM

Fail in Human Form: /Thankfully my girl is as pro gun as I am and I've taught her to shoot pretty much everything I own


Sounds expensive. I hope you have good renter's insurance.
 
2013-01-05 01:29:10 AM

Flakeloaf: Loaded Six String: Flakeloaf: vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

If you live in a civilized country where people don't blow each other away for standing outside an outhouse, turn to 318.

If you live in a barren wasteland without a functioning shred of humanity, turn to 83.

Turn to page 95 if you have the dignity and honor to not steal from or harm anyone else even if you're starving.

Jackass.

So he wasn't shot because he was threatening, he was shot because in your view he's subhuman?

Usually when you move the goalposts, it's TOWARDS the ball.


So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.
 
2013-01-05 01:29:35 AM

Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.


OK, I'll bite. FTFA:

"He allegedly rummaged through the home, eventually working his way up to the attic office.
'He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,' said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld.
The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater was still conscious."

There's no way of knowing if 1) the woman would have been in a position to issue a verbal warning for him to cease and desist and 2) he would have complied with the warning. In a perfect world, he would have realized she had the drop on him and bugged out or failing that, he would have hesitated, she would have warned him and he would have backed off. But since she has only has precious seconds to make that kind of assessment, I say she's better off safe than sorry.
 
2013-01-05 01:29:50 AM
If she were smart she would have waited until he was running down the street then put one in the back of his skull if ya know what I mean.
 
2013-01-05 01:29:54 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.


He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.
 
2013-01-05 01:30:24 AM

Amusement: What bugs me is why she needed to shoot 5 times. Gun control ain't about gun possession. Seems sorta inhumane to shoot five times to the face. Thinks ammo is semi wad cutter 158 grain soft lead @ 725 feet per second. 9mm is unimpressed.


I keep my snub nose .38 loaded with 158grain +P LSWCHP (the "FBI load"). Those would have been perfectly adequate here and the criminal probably wouldn't have had a head left.
 
2013-01-05 01:30:33 AM

Amusement: What bugs me is why she needed to shoot 5 times. Gun control ain't about gun possession. Seems sorta inhumane to shoot five times to the face. Thinks ammo is semi wad cutter 158 grain soft lead @ 725 feet per second. 9mm is unimpressed.


Sounds like this guys head is not vital anatomy.
 
2013-01-05 01:30:50 AM

Loaded Six String: So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.


Yes. Not necessarily.

And being unwilling to trust somebody and actually perceiving a real threat of harm from someone who is, at least according to the article, merely standing there holding my stuff, is still quite a leap. Being a thief ain't a hangin crime.
 
2013-01-05 01:30:52 AM

jimmiejaz: Knock knock....
*no answer*
_call hubby at work_ "hide the kids" (hubby calls 911)
...hubby expecting trouble?


Who, this guy?

media.cmgdigital.com
 
2013-01-05 01:31:10 AM

iq_in_binary: Loaded Six String: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

What about 9x18 makarov?

Is actually less powerful than .380 ACP, therefore under the threshold. I go by muzzle energy on average. Anything more than 350 or so ft/lbf is above the threshold for  semi-auto pistols.


Thanks
 
2013-01-05 01:31:31 AM

Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: /Thankfully my girl is as pro gun as I am and I've taught her to shoot pretty much everything I own

Sounds expensive. I hope you have good renter's insurance.


Lolz
 
2013-01-05 01:31:52 AM
He was shot 5 times in the head and neck but managed to drive away. Was she using metal bullets or what?
 
2013-01-05 01:32:01 AM

MurphyMurphy: This will in no way devolve into a troll thread about guns.


trolledbot.net
 
2013-01-05 01:32:46 AM

Fail in Human Form: Amusement: What bugs me is why she needed to shoot 5 times. Gun control ain't about gun possession. Seems sorta inhumane to shoot five times to the face. Thinks ammo is semi wad cutter 158 grain soft lead @ 725 feet per second. 9mm is unimpressed.

I keep my snub nose .38 loaded with 158grain +P LSWCHP (the "FBI load"). Those would have been perfectly adequate here and the criminal probably wouldn't have had a head left.


Are you talking about a .38 Special? 158gr is pretty damn heavy for a .380 ACP.
 
2013-01-05 01:32:55 AM

hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.

OK, I'll bite. FTFA:

"He allegedly rummaged through the home, eventually working his way up to the attic office.
'He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,' said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld.
The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater was still conscious."
There's no way of knowing if 1) the woman would have been in a position to issue a verbal warning for him to cease and desist and 2) he would have complied with the warning. In a perfect world, he would have realized she had the drop on him and bugged out or failing that, he would have hesitated, she would have warned him and he would have backed off. But since she has only has precious seconds to make that kind of assessment, I say she's better off safe than sorry.


In a perfect world, he wouldn't have broken into someone else's home.
 
2013-01-05 01:33:06 AM

splohn: He was shot 5 times in the head and neck but managed to drive away. Was she using metal bullets or what?


If I had to bet a dollar, probably lead round nose bullets.
 
2013-01-05 01:33:53 AM

iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special


Yes
 
2013-01-05 01:34:04 AM

iq_in_binary: He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.


It's criminal behavior. Labeling it "threatening" is a matter of intent. And you cannot prove the man's intent was anything other than to commit theft.
 
2013-01-05 01:34:35 AM

iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.


Prove he knew someone was home.
 
2013-01-05 01:35:38 AM

Harry Knutz: iq_in_binary: He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

It's criminal behavior. Labeling it "threatening" is a matter of intent. And you cannot prove the man's intent was anything other than to commit theft.


Would you be willing to risk your family on that? I wouldn't.
 
HBK
2013-01-05 01:36:17 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

Prove he knew someone was home.


No need. That's the risk a criminal runs when he decides to burgle a home.
 
2013-01-05 01:36:51 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

Prove he knew someone was home.


Prove he didn't. He was the one who B&E'd into an occupied home. The occupants have absolutely no duty to be sure of his intent. He's the one that has to justify his actions, not the victims.
 
2013-01-05 01:37:01 AM

hundreddollarman: There's no way of knowing if 1) the woman would have been in a position to issue a verbal warning for him to cease and desist and 2) he would have complied with the warning. In a perfect world, he would have realized she had the drop on him and bugged out or failing that, he would have hesitated, she would have warned him and he would have backed off. But since she has only has precious seconds to make that kind of assessment, I say she's better off safe than sorry.


And this is why journalists should learn the craft of journalism. Stops us from wondering about stuff like this.
 
2013-01-05 01:38:11 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

Prove he knew someone was home.


I am all in favor of people breaking into homes being in danger of being shot. There's a simple way for them to avoid it, don't be a farking criminal.
 
HBK
2013-01-05 01:39:55 AM

Fail in Human Form: Happened to my family growing up. I posted the story here before. He started knocking and then got more violent when my father wouldn't let him in. Lucky for him he couldn't get the door knocked down (thought he damn near did), otherwise he'd be 6 ft under right now.


In some states, you can blast a home invader through the door, without the criminal even stepping foot in the house. If someone's trying to break into your home, you can shoot them- in some states.

/IANAL
 
2013-01-05 01:40:43 AM

Flakeloaf: Loaded Six String: So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.

Yes. Not necessarily.

And being unwilling to trust somebody and actually perceiving a real threat of harm from someone who is, at least according to the article, merely standing there holding my stuff, is still quite a leap. Being a thief ain't a hangin crime.


This guy with a crowbar, Jack Nickolson with an axe, either one breaks down a door they have no business passing through it is a threatening act whether they are aware someone is on the other side or not. He had no business being there, rolled the dice that he may be confronted by someone armed or not and came up with the shiat end of the stick. Would it have offended your sensibilities any less had the family dog mauled him to death? Or the woman waited for him to round the corner and brained him with one good swing from a baseball bat?
 
2013-01-05 01:41:08 AM

iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.


Article doesn't say whether he was still holding the crowbar when he opened that closet door. Not that it matters that much, given that his intentions were clearly less than noble and the mother was being a momma bear, but a crowbar can do a lot of damage...

Honestly, I'm glad the woman was able to defend herself and her children. Clearly she knew how to handle the gun. Which is good. But I'm also glad that nobody (including the burglar) died, so there you go.
 
2013-01-05 01:42:19 AM

Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes


.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.
 
HBK
2013-01-05 01:43:35 AM

iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.


Really?

.380 ACP rounds are so much lighter, and .38 rounds are freaking huge. I always assumed .38 was a more powerful round.
 
2013-01-05 01:44:04 AM

Fail in Human Form: Would you be willing to risk your family on that? I wouldn't.


That's not the issue. The issue is that iq_in_binary called the man's behavior "threatening". Attempting to divine the man's intent is folly. If we are to litigate this issue, it will be within the realm of logic and fact, not hearsay.

Now, would I do everything in my power to defend my family? Of course. Would that involve deadly force? COME AT ME BRO AND FIND OUT.

/first action would be to call 9-1-1
//second action would be to take my kids to nearest egress
///confrontation is the last resort, always
 
2013-01-05 01:44:11 AM

Flakeloaf: But I wasn't there so I can't say what happened. Maybe he saw her and raised his weapon, or pulled out his dick, or reached for a sword and said he was Inigo Montoya, or gave her a whole host of reasons to have a reasonable fear of death. None of that is mentioned in the article. From the way it's written, she hides in the closet, he finds her, pop pop.


Having acknowledged this, why are you basing your argument on speculations about what she should have done based on the level of threat you think he presented? Your arguments have all been "you have no proof he did...you have no proof she didn't...just because he didn't..." No, and you don't either. You weren't there, the article is very light on details, and that's what we know. Now, it's possible to infer, from the fact that she wasn't hauled off to jail, that she was PROBABLY in fear enough of her life to justify what she did and told a story that the cops accepted, and possible to construct, from that inference, a likely scenario that would have given her that justification, and that's all people have been doing.

But the simple fact is that breaking into someone's house, no matter what YOU may think is right or wrong, gives the homeowner a rebuttable presumption that the intruder is there to do him harm, and an affirmative right to shoot first and ask questions later. In your own home, you don't have to wait till the intruder tries to harm you first, or give him reasonable chance to flee, or any of the other things you might have to do on the street. He broke into your house, you may defend yourself up to and including deadly force period.

There are a few exceptions, like if he's already on his way out, or if you clearly know you are not at risk; and you might morally and ethically want to wait to make sure it's not just your kid playing a prank; but if the intruder is inside your house, the laws are on your side. As I said, just because YOU may not like that fact, it's nonetheless the truth. And since none of us here knows exactly what happened, all this is just speculation. Including your saying "It doesn't sound like he did anything to warrant being shot." No, it doesn't. Because you don't know what happened either.
 
2013-01-05 01:44:44 AM

HBK: Fail in Human Form: Happened to my family growing up. I posted the story here before. He started knocking and then got more violent when my father wouldn't let him in. Lucky for him he couldn't get the door knocked down (thought he damn near did), otherwise he'd be 6 ft under right now.

In some states, you can blast a home invader through the door, without the criminal even stepping foot in the house. If someone's trying to break into your home, you can shoot them- in some states.

/IANAL


Maybe, but if the same thing happened to me here's what I would do. Tell the girlfriend to lock the bedroom door and arm herself, get 911 on the phone asap, let the invader know the cops are on the way, and then take up a defensive position relative to the door he's trying to get into with my weapon. If he's lucky the cops will get here before the door comes down.
 
2013-01-05 01:45:16 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Nice try, twerp.

/you still aren't getting them
//ever

Aren't you precious.


As a matter of fact, I am.

There are people in this country that will oppose you, no matter what. Know that.
 
2013-01-05 01:45:36 AM
static.film.it
 
2013-01-05 01:46:30 AM
movieodyssey.com
 
2013-01-05 01:46:55 AM

Loaded Six String: This guy with a crowbar, Jack Nickolson with an axe, either one breaks down a door they have no business passing through it is a threatening act


Again, it's a criminal act, not necessarily a threatening one. This is precisely why there are varying degrees when prosecuting felonious acts.
 
2013-01-05 01:47:13 AM

iq_in_binary:

Prove he didn't. He was the one who B&E'd into an occupied home. The occupants have absolutely no duty to be sure of his intent. He's the one that has to justify his actions, not the victims.


"My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."

That's likely enough to get him acquitted of home invasion, because knowledge of or recklessness as to the presence of people inside the house is one of the elements of that offence. He's still guilty of B&E of course and that's already a pretty big deal. But he has to get arrested first for any of that to matter, and that brings us to the homeowner's duty of care to him. It's not big, but it's not nil either.

The occupants of the home can't be expected to divine exactly what it is he plans to do while inside, and they are certainly entitled to use such clues as local society and context would offer them to make an educated guess about what it is the person plans to do. If violent home-invasion robberies are common there (the article doesn't say), then maybe perceiving the threat of death would be more reasonable. If you live in a society where someone pounding on your door for a few minutes and then walking inside means he plans to murder everybody well then I genuinely feel sorry for you, not baiting, not trolling. If that really is the way of life where you are, fire away. Unless the homeowner can prove that, then their local use of force laws would apply. Again, if that's castle doctrine then great. In most places it's warn-then-act. "GTFO" and if the guy does anything other than that, use reasonable force to make them leave. What's reasonable... again, really depends on what you and your bad guy are doing. Surprise, the article doesn't say.

Also she got five headshots out of six rounds fired with a revolver against a presumedly moving target while genuinely afraid. That's pretty boss.
 
2013-01-05 01:47:44 AM

Sherman Potter: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Nice try, twerp.

/you still aren't getting them
//ever

Aren't you precious.

As a matter of fact, I am.

There are people in this country that will oppose you, no matter what. Know that.


There, there. Shhhh. I'll keep the hallway light on, you can go back to sleep. No monsters here.
 
2013-01-05 01:48:50 AM
www.absolutefiction.com
 
2013-01-05 01:48:53 AM

Gyrfalcon: But the simple fact is that breaking into someone's house, no matter what YOU may think is right or wrong, gives the homeowner a rebuttable presumption that the intruder is there to do him harm, and an affirmative right to shoot first and ask questions later.


If the presumption is rebuttable, the right to kill cannot be absolute.
 
2013-01-05 01:49:45 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary:

Prove he didn't. He was the one who B&E'd into an occupied home. The occupants have absolutely no duty to be sure of his intent. He's the one that has to justify his actions, not the victims.

"My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."

That's likely enough to get him acquitted of home invasion, because knowledge of or recklessness as to the presence of people inside the house is one of the elements of that offence. He's still guilty of B&E of course and that's already a pretty big deal. But he has to get arrested first for any of that to matter, and that brings us to the homeowner's duty of care to him. It's not big, but it's not nil either.

The occupants of the home can't be expected to divine exactly what it is he plans to do while inside, and they are certainly entitled to use such clues as local society and context would offer them to make an educated guess about what it is the person plans to do. If violent home-invasion robberies are common there (the article doesn't say), then maybe perceiving the threat of death would be more reasonable. If you live in a society where someone pounding on your door for a few minutes and then walking inside means he plans to murder everybody well then I genuinely feel sorry for you, not baiting, not trolling. If that really is the way of life where you are, fire away. Unless the homeowner can prove that, then their local use of force laws would apply. Again, if that's castle doctrine then great. In most places it's warn-then-act. "GTFO" and ...


"Holds up Ohio Revised Code, mainly the castle doctrine" - If a person breaks into your house there is an automatic assumption of death or grave bodily harm to the occupants and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self and family.

*case dismissed*
 
2013-01-05 01:49:52 AM

Harry Knutz: Loaded Six String: This guy with a crowbar, Jack Nickolson with an axe, either one breaks down a door they have no business passing through it is a threatening act

Again, it's a criminal act, not necessarily a threatening one. This is precisely why there are varying degrees when prosecuting felonious acts.


Breaking into someones home is a personal violation, the criminal doing so has abandoned the requirements of society, and should face the highest possible risks for doing so.
 
2013-01-05 01:50:09 AM
Look, I would prob. be labled a "libtard" by many fark posters. That being said if anyone forces there way into my house, at anytime night or day, and they are not the police, either. 357 158 grain hollow points or. 45 Cal full metal jackets are heading their way. No questions asked, let the legal chips fall where they may. My families safety comes first. If they still squirm, id stand on their neck till the police got there (after a few nut kicks.) Don't come into my castle uninvited if you don't want to die.
 
2013-01-05 01:50:31 AM

Canton: Clearly she knew how to handle the gun.


Six shots point blank and the guy drove away(ok, not far).
 
2013-01-05 01:51:41 AM
So let me get this straight, 5 bullets in the face and neck and he lived? Time to upgrade to a .45 cal, that .38 spc ain't S**T!
 
HBK
2013-01-05 01:52:16 AM

Fail in Human Form: HBK: Fail in Human Form: Happened to my family growing up. I posted the story here before. He started knocking and then got more violent when my father wouldn't let him in. Lucky for him he couldn't get the door knocked down (thought he damn near did), otherwise he'd be 6 ft under right now.

In some states, you can blast a home invader through the door, without the criminal even stepping foot in the house. If someone's trying to break into your home, you can shoot them- in some states.

/IANAL

Maybe, but if the same thing happened to me here's what I would do. Tell the girlfriend to lock the bedroom door and arm herself, get 911 on the phone asap, let the invader know the cops are on the way, and then take up a defensive position relative to the door he's trying to get into with my weapon. If he's lucky the cops will get here before the door comes down.


Most doors can be kicked in with one well-placed, stiff kick. I'd forgo calling the cops and have a gun pointed at the door if I realized someone was trying to break in. I guess if the wife were home I'd have her call 911, but I'd probably rather just get ready for the confrontation rather than waste time. It's not a matter of picking a lock, it's a matter of kicking the door as hard as you can two feet below the lock.

/had my house burglarized with a kick to the door.
//buddy broke into a friend's house during hurricane Ike to save her cat with one kick to the door. Per him (a 145 lb guy) "it's surprisingly easy."
 
2013-01-05 01:52:37 AM

Boojum2k: Breaking into someones home is a personal violation, the criminal doing so has abandoned the requirements of society, and should face the highest possible risks for doing so.


Is there a legal right to use deadly force against someone breaking into your home? In most jurisdictions, yes. But that's not the issue. We are talking about intent. The man's intent was labeled "threatening" without any sort of proof.
 
2013-01-05 01:52:46 AM

Fail in Human Form: "Holds up Ohio Revised Code, mainly the castle doctrine" - If a person breaks into your house there is an automatic assumption of death or grave bodily harm to the occupants and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self and family.

*case dismissed*


Gwinnett County is in Georgia.
 
2013-01-05 01:52:53 AM

thorthor: 45 Cal full metal jackets are heading their way.


Get better ammo

/I use Federal Hydra-Shok in my every day carry .45
//I wouldn't recommend it in lower calibers though due to expansion issues
///In my .380 PPK I use Horandy Critical Defense
 
2013-01-05 01:53:11 AM

Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: There's no way of knowing if 1) the woman would have been in a position to issue a verbal warning for him to cease and desist and 2) he would have complied with the warning. In a perfect world, he would have realized she had the drop on him and bugged out or failing that, he would have hesitated, she would have warned him and he would have backed off. But since she has only has precious seconds to make that kind of assessment, I say she's better off safe than sorry.

And this is why journalists should learn the craft of journalism. Stops us from wondering about stuff like this.


Agreed.
 
2013-01-05 01:53:35 AM

HBK: Fail in Human Form: HBK: Fail in Human Form: Happened to my family growing up. I posted the story here before. He started knocking and then got more violent when my father wouldn't let him in. Lucky for him he couldn't get the door knocked down (thought he damn near did), otherwise he'd be 6 ft under right now.

In some states, you can blast a home invader through the door, without the criminal even stepping foot in the house. If someone's trying to break into your home, you can shoot them- in some states.

/IANAL

Maybe, but if the same thing happened to me here's what I would do. Tell the girlfriend to lock the bedroom door and arm herself, get 911 on the phone asap, let the invader know the cops are on the way, and then take up a defensive position relative to the door he's trying to get into with my weapon. If he's lucky the cops will get here before the door comes down.

Most doors can be kicked in with one well-placed, stiff kick. I'd forgo calling the cops and have a gun pointed at the door if I realized someone was trying to break in. I guess if the wife were home I'd have her call 911, but I'd probably rather just get ready for the confrontation rather than waste time. It's not a matter of picking a lock, it's a matter of kicking the door as hard as you can two feet below the lock.

/had my house burglarized with a kick to the door.
//buddy broke into a friend's house during hurricane Ike to save her cat with one kick to the door. Per him (a 145 lb guy) "it's surprisingly easy."


I have door jams at all entrances =)
 
2013-01-05 01:53:59 AM

HBK: iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.

Really?

.380 ACP rounds are so much lighter, and .38 rounds are freaking huge. I always assumed .38 was a more powerful round.


Argh no they're the same power level, sorry. I was thinking .38 ACP (yes they are different), I've been on an old school Colt kick lately. .38 ACP is a semi-rimmed round used in guns like the Colt M1900, Colt M1902, and M1903 Pocket Hammerless. Quite a few 1911s were chambered for it also. Complete brain fart on my part.

No, this lady was using a .38 Special, a .380 ACP like a Colt Mustang would have been pretty much the same result. .38 Special would be in the same boat. I should clarify that .38 ACP is the threshold caliber for my proposal, NOT .380 ACP, I don't want to have to tax stamp my M1902.
 
2013-01-05 01:54:44 AM

Flakeloaf: Fail in Human Form: "Holds up Ohio Revised Code, mainly the castle doctrine" - If a person breaks into your house there is an automatic assumption of death or grave bodily harm to the occupants and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self and family.

*case dismissed*

Gwinnett County is in Georgia.


I was giving an example of if it happened to myself, but I believe Georgia has the castle doctrine as well.
 
2013-01-05 01:55:56 AM
www.grolschfilmworks.com
 
2013-01-05 01:56:37 AM

Harry Knutz: Boojum2k: Breaking into someones home is a personal violation, the criminal doing so has abandoned the requirements of society, and should face the highest possible risks for doing so.

Is there a legal right to use deadly force against someone breaking into your home? In most jurisdictions, yes. But that's not the issue. We are talking about intent. The man's intent was labeled "threatening" without any sort of proof.


His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.
 
2013-01-05 01:56:58 AM

Fail in Human Form: thorthor: 45 Cal full metal jackets are heading their way.

Get better ammo

/I use Federal Hydra-Shok in my every day carry .45
//I wouldn't recommend it in lower calibers though due to expansion issues
///In my .380 PPK I use Horandy Critical Defense


What kind of PPK do you have? I picked up an Interarms model in .380 ACP last week and I have heard the entire spectrum on the PPK's reliability (or supposed lack thereof) when it comes to hollowpoint ammunition.
 
2013-01-05 01:57:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: Flakeloaf: But I wasn't there so I can't say what happened. Maybe he saw her and raised his weapon, or pulled out his dick, or reached for a sword and said he was Inigo Montoya, or gave her a whole host of reasons to have a reasonable fear of death. None of that is mentioned in the article. From the way it's written, she hides in the closet, he finds her, pop pop.

Having acknowledged this, why are you basing your argument on speculations about what she should have done based on the level of threat you think he presented? Your arguments have all been "you have no proof he did...you have no proof she didn't...just because he didn't..." No, and you don't either. You weren't there, the article is very light on details, and that's what we know. Now, it's possible to infer, from the fact that she wasn't hauled off to jail, that she was PROBABLY in fear enough of her life to justify what she did and told a story that the cops accepted, and possible to construct, from that inference, a likely scenario that would have given her that justification, and that's all people have been doing.

But the simple fact is that breaking into someone's house, no matter what YOU may think is right or wrong, gives the homeowner a rebuttable presumption that the intruder is there to do him harm, and an affirmative right to shoot first and ask questions later. In your own home, you don't have to wait till the intruder tries to harm you first, or give him reasonable chance to flee, or any of the other things you might have to do on the street. He broke into your house, you may defend yourself up to and including deadly force period.

There are a few exceptions, like if he's already on his way out, or if you clearly know you are not at risk; and you might morally and ethically want to wait to make sure it's not just your kid playing a prank; but if the intruder is inside your house, the laws are on your side. As I said, just because YOU may not like that fact, it's nonetheless the truth. And si ...


Except for the fact that breaking into an occupied house DOES warrant somebody being shot.
 
2013-01-05 01:57:39 AM

Flakeloaf: Fail in Human Form: "Holds up Ohio Revised Code, mainly the castle doctrine" - If a person breaks into your house there is an automatic assumption of death or grave bodily harm to the occupants and deadly force is authorized in defense of one's self and family.

*case dismissed*

Gwinnett County is in Georgia.


Quoting myself because GA is also a castle doctrine state.

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.


Good shoot. Case dismissed. Moral jury still out.
 
2013-01-05 01:57:58 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary:

Prove he didn't. He was the one who B&E'd into an occupied home. The occupants have absolutely no duty to be sure of his intent. He's the one that has to justify his actions, not the victims.

"My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."

That's likely enough to get him acquitted of home invasion, because knowledge of or recklessness as to the presence of people inside the house is one of the elements of that offence. He's still guilty of B&E of course and that's already a pretty big deal. But he has to get arrested first for any of that to matter, and that brings us to the homeowner's duty of care to him. It's not big, but it's not nil either.

The occupants of the home can't be expected to divine exactly what it is he plans to do while inside, and they are certainly entitled to use such clues as local society and context would offer them to make an educated guess about what it is the person plans to do. If violent home-invasion robberies are common there (the article doesn't say), then maybe perceiving the threat of death would be more reasonable. If you live in a society where someone pounding on your door for a few minutes and then walking inside means he plans to murder everybody well then I genuinely feel sorry for you, not baiting, not trolling. If that really is the way of life where you are, fire away. Unless the homeowner can prove that, then their local use of force laws would apply. Again, if that's castle doctrine then great. In most places it's warn-then-act. "GTFO" and ...


We will just have to disagree then, as it is unlikely either of us will convince the other.
 
2013-01-05 01:58:45 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary:

Prove he didn't. He was the one who B&E'd into an occupied home. The occupants have absolutely no duty to be sure of his intent. He's the one that has to justify his actions, not the victims.

"My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."

That's likely enough to get him acquitted of home invasion, because knowledge of or recklessness as to the presence of people inside the house is one of the elements of that offence. He's still guilty of B&E of course and that's already a pretty big deal. But he has to get arrested first for any of that to matter, and that brings us to the homeowner's duty of care to him. It's not big, but it's not nil either.

The occupants of the home can't be expected to divine exactly what it is he plans to do while inside, and they are certainly entitled to use such clues as local society and context would offer them to make an educated guess about what it is the person plans to do. If violent home-invasion robberies are common there (the article doesn't say), then maybe perceiving the threat of death would be more reasonable. If you live in a society where someone pounding on your door for a few minutes and then walking inside means he plans to murder everybody well then I genuinely feel sorry for you, not baiting, not trolling. If that really is the way of life where you are, fire away. Unless the homeowner can prove that, then their local use of force laws would apply. Again, if that's castle doctrine then great. In most places it's warn-then-act. "GTFO" and ...


He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.
 
2013-01-05 01:58:51 AM

hundreddollarman: Fail in Human Form: thorthor: 45 Cal full metal jackets are heading their way.

Get better ammo

/I use Federal Hydra-Shok in my every day carry .45
//I wouldn't recommend it in lower calibers though due to expansion issues
///In my .380 PPK I use Horandy Critical Defense

What kind of PPK do you have? I picked up an Interarms model in .380 ACP last week and I have heard the entire spectrum on the PPK's reliability (or supposed lack thereof) when it comes to hollowpoint ammunition.


I have a S&W Walther PPK/S, carried it for years without a problem

/I also have a Walther PP in .32 that I've never had an issue with
 
2013-01-05 01:59:27 AM

iq_in_binary: Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.


If you get hit square in the face with a .380 Auto you are likely dropping after the first round.  Sounds like he got lucky, or she got excited.

She could have missed just as easily with a 9mm.
 
2013-01-05 01:59:36 AM

Boojum2k:

His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.


His behavior was criminal. "Threatening" connotes intent to do personal harm. There is no evidence that's the case. The only evidence indicates B&E.

You would make a terrible attorney.
 
2013-01-05 01:59:44 AM

Harry Knutz: Boojum2k: Breaking into someones home is a personal violation, the criminal doing so has abandoned the requirements of society, and should face the highest possible risks for doing so.

Is there a legal right to use deadly force against someone breaking into your home? In most jurisdictions, yes. But that's not the issue. We are talking about intent. The man's intent was labeled "threatening" without any sort of proof.


He tore down the door with a crowbar. That's pretty damn good indication of intent.
 
2013-01-05 01:59:55 AM
Also I think it's funny that the law has to specify the lethal force be used against another person in response to a break-in.

www.screeninsults.com
 
2013-01-05 02:02:39 AM
I have guns for self defense, but more importantly I have dogs who will quite loudly inform me if something is awry. The dogs seem an adequate deterrence.
 
2013-01-05 02:03:00 AM

Flakeloaf: "My client knocked vigorously on the door several times, rang the doorbell repeatedly and looked into the windows of the dwelling-house to ensure that nobody was home because he did not intend to commit a home invasion and put himself or the occupants at risk of a violent confrontation. We submit that he had a good-faith belief that the house was unoccupied, and that by breaking into the home with the intent to steal property, he would never be in a position to endanger the health of any person other than himself."



You can spin like a shyster all ya want, what he did was break into a home with a mother and some kids with a crowbar and proceeded to ransack the place while they hid. There's no reason the mother should be expected to let him live after he's made it to the second floor after breaking in and uncovered her hiding children's hiding spot. Even a coup de grace should be legally acceptable in that case.

The homestead is scared. The burden of proof of goodwill is on the part of the one who enters. If you are not invited in and you are not bidden to enter by a higher legal authority, then you are outlaw. It is not a crime to kill an outlaw. If it is, then we should change the law.

This guy is stupid lucky. I don't know how he got up after 5 bullets to the head and neck, but he did. There's no moral reason he should be alive. He's simply lucky.
 
2013-01-05 02:03:51 AM

iq_in_binary: He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.


Article doesn't say he tore the door down. He could've smashed a little window and turned the cylinder, or deformed the door frame and pushed the door open, or smashed the whole thing to bits like the koolaid man. I'm just going by what I know, which ain't much.

Anyway, people from different cultures are going to believe different things. The internet lets these people talk to each other to learn their similarities and differences, which is cool. The weird part is how we both feel sorry for the other's civilization.
 
2013-01-05 02:04:02 AM

iq_in_binary: He tore down the door with a crowbar. That's pretty damn good indication of intent.


You're a mindreader! Call James Randi and collect your prize.

/Intent to break down a door with a crowbar, yes. Anything else is hearsay.
 
2013-01-05 02:04:13 AM

Harry Knutz: Boojum2k:

His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.

His behavior was criminal. "Threatening" connotes intent to do personal harm. There is no evidence that's the case. The only evidence indicates B&E.

You would make a terrible attorney.


Likely better than you, you'd defend this guy before a jury by arguing that he was not threatening. They'd probably not have finished laughing before finding him guilty. He broke into her home, with a crowbar.
 
2013-01-05 02:05:20 AM

Lsherm: iq_in_binary: Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

If you get hit square in the face with a .380 Auto you are likely dropping after the first round.  Sounds like he got lucky, or she got excited.

She could have missed just as easily with a 9mm.


You would be quite surprised, actually. .380 ACP is about 130 ft/lbf less powerful than .38 Auto, as is .38 Spl. 330 ft/lbf is generally enough to shatter orbitals and punch through skulls, 200ft/lbf not so much. There's plenty of instances of light load rounds like .380 ACP and .38 Spl zipping right along under people's scalps and exiting off yonder without even cracking the skull, some of those the poor bastard didn't even realize he was shot until they started seeing blood running down their forehead.
 
2013-01-05 02:05:40 AM

doglover: It is not a crime to kill an outlaw


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-05 02:10:09 AM

Boojum2k: Likely better than you, you'd defend this guy before a jury by arguing that he was not threatening. They'd probably not have finished laughing before finding him guilty. He broke into her home, with a crowbar.


Depends on the charges against him. No defense against B&E in this case. Would plead No Contest. But any charge that begins with "Intent" and includes "bodily harm" I'm pretty sure I could get dismissed on the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HE INTENDED TO DO ANYTHING BUT ROB THE JOINT.
 
2013-01-05 02:10:29 AM
I agree with one of the previous posters.

Someone knocking persistently on the door doesn't necessitate a call to the husband about what to do. The husband's response to tell them to hide and immediately call 911 also seems more than out of whack for what the woman thought was a solicitor.

Woman: "Honey, I think there's girl scouts at the door! I called you as soon as I could!"
Man: "Get a gun and hide with the kids, I'll call the cops."

Not only that, they don't report that the man stole anything, rather that he went through the house until he made it to the attic office and then opened the closet to find the woman and her kids hiding.

The reported facts just don't seem to explain the behavior of these individuals. Something else was going on here.
 
2013-01-05 02:10:30 AM

Flakeloaf: doglover: It is not a crime to kill an outlaw

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x367]


You're telling me you wouldn't shoot that? A guy in a hockey mask with a cricket bat? I'd shoot that guy and that would be my defense: "He broke into my house and attacked me with a cricket bat."

There's no law against shooting people who break into your house an attack you. There's probably not even a law against shooting people who aren't in your home and attack you with a cricket bat in most places.
 
2013-01-05 02:10:35 AM

Harry Knutz: iq_in_binary: He tore down the door with a crowbar. That's pretty damn good indication of intent.

You're a mindreader! Call James Randi and collect your prize.

/Intent to break down a door with a crowbar, yes. Anything else is hearsay.


B&E into an occupied home means he had little to no regard for the safety of the people inside the house. Plain and farking simple. That you can't see that is just evidence of your complete lack of observational skills or capability for critical thought.

Castle Doctrine is the law of the land where this happened, obviously the society had decided from previous experience that people entering occupied homes uninvited generally have ill intent towards the well being of the people inside. Are you seriously this incapable of recognizing or being aware of societal norms and expectations?
 
2013-01-05 02:11:56 AM

iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.


www.thegtsaga.net

What was that- IS SOMEBODY THERE?? ... must have been my imagination.

/never should have come here!
 
2013-01-05 02:12:36 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: Presumption of innocence ends when you enter a home uninvited. He chose to take that risk, he chose to present himself as an easily perceived lethal threat. He should have known better.

Presumption of guilt is a long, LONG way from a reasonable belief that someone immediately intends to hurt you. Fail in Human Form: He was shot because he posed a direct threat to those involved.

You have no proof he did, I have no proof he didn't. Harry Knutz: Fail in Human Form: Sorry, but you break into my house that is a presumed deadly threat to me and mine (and is stated to be in law here). You're bought and paid for.

People who intend deadly threat typically do not knock and ring the doorbell first. Pretty sure the crook never would have entered if he thought someone was home.

So I'm not just taking crazy pills. Thanks.

He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

Prove he knew someone was home.


How 'bout this? fark him. Dude just got out of jail for battery and has six arrests in the last 4 years. In a perfect world he'd have died on the scene. I like the lesson that if you keep comiting crimes someone will shoot you in the face.

/liberal
//in favor of some type of gun control
///more in favor of pieces of shiat getting what they deserve
 
2013-01-05 02:13:37 AM

Boojum2k: Harry Knutz: Boojum2k:

His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.

His behavior was criminal. "Threatening" connotes intent to do personal harm. There is no evidence that's the case. The only evidence indicates B&E.

You would make a terrible attorney.

Likely better than you, you'd defend this guy before a jury by arguing that he was not threatening. They'd probably not have finished laughing before finding him guilty. He broke into her home, with a crowbar.


"I needed the crowbar to force the door open. I carried it with me in case I found another door, and also because I didn't want to leave evidence behind or leave a good weapon lying around for the homeowner to bash in my skull with."
> "So you admit a crowbar can be used as a weapon."
>> "Objection: States the obvious. Anything that can be held in the hand can be a weapon."
> "The witness put that ball in play."
>>> "Overruled. Please answer the question."
"Yeah, I guess so. But I wasn't gonna hit anyone with it. I didn't even know anyone was inside, I checked to make sure. I just wanted to steal a buncha stuff."

IANAL and even I can find reasonable doubt here. Any defense lawyer who can find his way into a courtroom and manage to sit down on the correct side of the chair can make pretty short work of a home invasion accusation.
 
2013-01-05 02:14:29 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


Did you miss the part about breaking into a private home?  That's a good enough reason to get shot.
 
2013-01-05 02:14:37 AM

iq_in_binary: Are you seriously this incapable of recognizing or being aware of societal norms and expectations?


The law doesn't care about societal norms. The law is the law. Was the shooting justified under the law? Yes. Was the criminal's intent to commit bodily harm to the home's occupants? If you claim to know the man's intent, you're full of it.
 
2013-01-05 02:17:28 AM

Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.


It's not about the things he takes.  It's not about the value of the items he is taking.  It is all about the violation of a person's sanctity in their own home.  There would be no difference if he were taking a one dollar toy or a million dollar work of art.
 
2013-01-05 02:18:12 AM

doglover: Flakeloaf: doglover: It is not a crime to kill an outlaw

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x367]

You're telling me you wouldn't shoot that? A guy in a hockey mask with a cricket bat? I'd shoot that guy and that would be my defense: "He broke into my house and attacked me with a cricket bat."

There's no law against shooting people who break into your house an attack you. There's probably not even a law against shooting people who aren't in your home and attack you with a cricket bat in most places.


That was a picture of a fairly well-known comic book, television and (to a lesser extent) film character Casey Jones. He is a vigilante half-villain who annoys protagonists by having a good legal compass but absolutely no sense of proportion, beating insensible a purse snatcher or a mass-murderer with equal vigour. I was comparing you to him.

theforvm.org

This is the Simpsons character McBain. He is a stiff, humourless parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and in this episode of the television program he tries to do standup comedy. The juxtaposition of this character with his environment is already humourous, and his need to explicitly point out when he has made a joke advances the absurdity. The caption on the picture is meant to place the scene at a specific time in the viewer's mind, and remind them of

oh fark it.
 
2013-01-05 02:18:45 AM
Flakeloaf:

You have deserved a piss yellow color and a troll or FUKing Stupid Tag!

Congrates!!!
 
2013-01-05 02:20:04 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Nice try, twerp.

/you still aren't getting them
//ever

Aren't you precious.

As a matter of fact, I am.

There are people in this country that will oppose you, no matter what. Know that.

There, there. Shhhh. I'll keep the hallway light on, you can go back to sleep. No monsters here.


Clearly you have fears of your own. That's okay, we're all in this boat together. Thankfully, you don't get to tell me how I am allowed to live any more than I get to tell you how you are allowed to live.

The difference between you and I is that I am willing to defend this arrangement.
/it's called freedom
 
2013-01-05 02:20:18 AM

Harry Knutz: iq_in_binary: Are you seriously this incapable of recognizing or being aware of societal norms and expectations?

The law doesn't care about societal norms. The law is the law. Was the shooting justified under the law? Yes. Was the criminal's intent to commit bodily harm to the home's occupants? If you claim to know the man's intent, you're full of it.


Actions speak louder than words. He broke into an occupied home. If he didn't intend to harm anyone it would stand to reason he would have waited until no one was home. Nobody gives a flying fark what his intentions were, nobody is psychic. When you take actions that can easily be perceived as intending others harm, like breaking into an occupied home, intent doesn't matter worth a damn, perception does. His victims have absolutely no moral duty to explain their actions to you when they were in reaction to a traumatic crime.
 
2013-01-05 02:21:20 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Canton: Clearly she knew how to handle the gun.

Six shots point blank and the guy drove away(ok, not far).


I didn't say her aim was perfect. The situation must have been a bit stressful. Someone did mention earlier that she should have aimed for the center of mass. And they're right. But it doesn't sound like there was much time to think in that situation, and if she'd never shot a dude before. So yeah, I'd say she handled the gun well.

/Also, she didn't shoot herself or her kids by accident, which is a huge plus.
 
2013-01-05 02:22:57 AM

Linkster: Flakeloaf:

You have deserved a piss yellow color and a troll or FUKing Stupid Tag!

Congrates!!!


tekstovi-pesama.com

Yay, grates!
 
2013-01-05 02:23:19 AM

Canton: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Canton: Clearly she knew how to handle the gun.

Six shots point blank and the guy drove away(ok, not far).

I didn't say her aim was perfect. The situation must have been a bit stressful. Someone did mention earlier that she should have aimed for the center of mass. And they're right. But it doesn't sound like there was much time to think in that situation, and if she'd never shot a dude before. So yeah, I'd say she handled the gun well.

/Also, she didn't shoot herself or her kids by accident, which is a huge plus.


No argument there.
 
2013-01-05 02:23:24 AM

Sherman Potter: The difference between you and I


Actually, it's the difference between you and me. And feel free to presume to speak for me anytime. That's your right under the 1st Amendment. It's the one right there before the 2nd. You know, the first one.
 
2013-01-05 02:24:47 AM

Flakeloaf: oh fark it.


It's not my fault you suck at jokes and dealing with heckling.

Maybe you should the Groundlings up for a few lessons.
 
2013-01-05 02:26:33 AM

Flakeloaf: IANAL and even I can find reasonable doubt here


No, you can find what you think is reasonable doubt, but what a court wouldn't consider to be reasonable doubt. I'm fairly sure breaking into an occupied house with a weapon counts whether or not you knew the house was occupied.

/liberal, pro gun control.
//absolutely no problems with this, though. Straightforward example of self-defense.
 
2013-01-05 02:28:18 AM

Harry Knutz: iq_in_binary: Are you seriously this incapable of recognizing or being aware of societal norms and expectations?

The law doesn't care about societal norms. The law is the law. Was the shooting justified under the law? Yes. Was the criminal's intent to commit bodily harm to the home's occupants? If you claim to know the man's intent, you're full of it.


That's the takeaway here. We can examine the presumption that simply being in a person's house means you're there to slaughter everyone and that you should be beaten, set on fire and pissed out with bullets. We can agree with it or we can call it odious and we can bat our opinions back and forth knowing full well we aren't convincing anyone because talking about things with people who don't believe what you do is fun. The law says breaking into someone's house in Georgia entitles anyone living inside to kill you to death, and that's pretty much exactly what this woman tried to do.
 
2013-01-05 02:29:23 AM

doglover: Flakeloaf: oh fark it.

It's not my fault you suck at jokes and dealing with heckling.

Maybe you should the Groundlings up for a few lessons.


Well shiat. I did blow that one didn't I?

Bedtime.
 
2013-01-05 02:31:27 AM
I think the only thing we've really gleaned so far from this thread is that Canada must be the most polite place on Earth. Except Quebec. I've heard some Quebecois can be down right nasty if you don't speak french in their presence.
 
2013-01-05 02:33:35 AM

iq_in_binary: Actions speak louder than words. He broke into an occupied home. If he didn't intend to harm anyone it would stand to reason he would have waited until no one was home. Nobody gives a flying fark what his intentions were, nobody is psychic. When you take actions that can easily be perceived as intending others harm, like breaking into an occupied home, intent doesn't matter worth a damn, perception does. His victims have absolutely no moral duty to explain their actions to you when they were in reaction to a traumatic crime.


If you were paying attention, I very clearly said that the woman's actions were justified under the law. She shot him precisely because she perceived a threat, so Castle Doctrine would be in effect. There is no dispute, here. We agree on this. (I did not address whether her actions were morally justifiable, but for the record, I believe they were.)

Where we disagree is motive. Was the man actually intending to commit her harm? You don't know that. I don't know that. In a court of law, when filing charges, you need evidence. It would be hard to charge this man with anything other than B&E. That's the entire point I've been making. For the purposes of deciding what to charge this guy with, absent evidence not apparent in the article, you can't prove anything other than his intent was to break open a door.
 
2013-01-05 02:34:46 AM

Harry Knutz: Boojum2k: Likely better than you, you'd defend this guy before a jury by arguing that he was not threatening. They'd probably not have finished laughing before finding him guilty. He broke into her home, with a crowbar.

Depends on the charges against him. No defense against B&E in this case. Would plead No Contest. But any charge that begins with "Intent" and includes "bodily harm" I'm pretty sure I could get dismissed on the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE HE INTENDED TO DO ANYTHING BUT ROB THE JOINT.


Depends on how you read Georgia's castle doctrine statute:

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.


(1) and (2) clearly go together, but that "or" I bolded for (3) gives you an excuse to use deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony during a break-in.  So if he was grabbing more than $500 of stuff (per Georgia law) he was committing a felony.

You can't really count his damage to the door coming in as theft, but thankfully, Georgia also has felony property vandalism statutes as well.  So the minute he did more than $500 in damage and looked like he was going to do more, she's in the clear.
 
2013-01-05 02:38:38 AM

iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.


.38 ACP is 9mm.
 
2013-01-05 02:38:44 AM

Loaded Six String: I think the only thing we've really gleaned so far from this thread is that Canada must be the most polite place on Earth. Except Quebec. I've heard some Quebecois can be down right nasty if you don't speak french in their presence.


This is the place that arrested an old guy for assault after he had the audacity to hit a guy over the head with his cane. All the guy did was smash the old dude's front window and crawl through it. Entirely too long after the fact, he was acquitted. Even our Supremes get confused by the bizarre array of self-defense laws here and everyone agrees they need a total rewrite.
 
2013-01-05 02:40:10 AM
If you believe that someone breaking into your home (with a crowbar no less) is not threatening you are a moron.

She should have used a shotgun
 
2013-01-05 02:44:08 AM

UsikFark: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

.38 ACP is 9mm.


Not quite

9x19mm is about twice as powerful as .38 ACP. 3 to 3 1/2 times more powerful than .380 ACP and .38 Spl.
 
2013-01-05 02:46:13 AM

Loaded Six String: I think the only thing we've really gleaned so far from this thread is that Canada must be the most polite place on Earth. Except Quebec. I've heard some Quebecois can be down right nasty if you don't speak french in their presence.


I've told this story before, but the last time I was in Quebec I was smoking a cigarette on the street and a woman came up to me and asked me a question.  When I stared at her blankly, she asked another question.  I don't speak a word of French, but I had a pocket dictionary full of phrases I could use while traveling.  After two minutes of staring at her and explaining in what I would call "pidgin French" that I didn't speak French, she made the universal symbol for "cigarette" using two fingers and miming a puff.  I gave her a smoke.  I shouldn't have, because the French word for cigarette is farkign cigarette.  Instead of just asking for what she wanted, she was running down every slang term she could think of and getting irritated that I didn't understand her.

After she finished smoking it in silence next to me, she said "Thank you" as she walked away.  I KNOW she spoke at least a little English.  They aren't that rude in France.  Actually, most people in France are really nice as long as you try.  Everyone in Quebec treats your inability to speak fluent French the same way a mother would treat a 10 year-old child who just shiat his pants.  They aren't just disappointed, they can't believe you've made it this far in life.
 
2013-01-05 02:47:22 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: The difference between you and I

Actually, it's the difference between you and me. And feel free to presume to speak for me anytime. That's your right under the 1st Amendment. It's the one right there before the 2nd. You know, the first one.


Yes, you've got me on that one. Feel free to pound your tiny little fists in outrage.

/like i said
//you aren't getting them
///ever
 
2013-01-05 02:48:11 AM
So, no only in the US is burglary is a crime punishable by death, but it is also all right for civilians to execute them without warning, and without any sort of trial?
 
2013-01-05 02:48:47 AM
I'm not going to argue about her legal justification, as she clearly is in the clear. Her moral justification? It's up for debate. I think that since she hid in the damn attic, she did all that is required of her to be morally justified. We can't know the criminal's motives from TFA, but I don't think it's her responsibility to guess.
 
2013-01-05 02:49:30 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


...like stealing things? Good to know that if I'm ever your neighbor, you would feel entitled to my things if you knocked on my door long enough.
 
2013-01-05 02:50:14 AM

Sherman Potter: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: The difference between you and I

Actually, it's the difference between you and me. And feel free to presume to speak for me anytime. That's your right under the 1st Amendment. It's the one right there before the 2nd. You know, the first one.

Yes, you've got me on that one. Feel free to pound your tiny little fists in outrage.

/like i said
//you aren't getting them
///ever


/never said I wanted 'em
//you can have 'em
///wouldn't want to take away the only thing a man's got in life
 
2013-01-05 02:51:53 AM

iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

.38 ACP is 9mm.

Not quite

9x19mm is about twice as powerful as .38 ACP. 3 to 3 1/2 times more powerful than .380 ACP and .38 Spl.


Both are 9mm in diameter and similar weight, I just think it's interesting. See, I was technically right, the best kind.
 
2013-01-05 02:54:08 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: The difference between you and I

Actually, it's the difference between you and me. And feel free to presume to speak for me anytime. That's your right under the 1st Amendment. It's the one right there before the 2nd. You know, the first one.

Yes, you've got me on that one. Feel free to pound your tiny little fists in outrage.

/like i said
//you aren't getting them
///ever

/never said I wanted 'em
//you can have 'em
///wouldn't want to take away the only thing a man's got in life


Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?
 
2013-01-05 02:57:20 AM

bikkurikun: So, no only in the US is burglary is a crime punishable by death, but it is also all right for civilians to execute them without warning, and without any sort of trial?


You make it sound like an American with a gun is an officer of the law. They aren't. The trial and punishment, settlement, if you will, happens later when real officers of the law get involved.

What happened in the article may have been legal, but it wasn't a trial.
 
HBK
2013-01-05 02:59:07 AM

bikkurikun: So, no only in the US is burglary is a crime punishable by death, but it is also all right for civilians to execute them without warning, and without any sort of trial?


yep. Don't break into houses and you'll be fine. Otherwise... well it's your gamble.
 
2013-01-05 02:59:30 AM

bikkurikun: So, no only in the US is burglary is a crime punishable by death, but it is also all right for civilians to execute them without warning, and without any sort of trial?


Yes. If you break into someone's home they can shoot you. They can kill you

Moral: Don't break into someone's home . It's your choice
 
2013-01-05 03:00:52 AM

UsikFark: iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

.38 ACP is 9mm.

Not quite

9x19mm is about twice as powerful as .38 ACP. 3 to 3 1/2 times more powerful than .380 ACP and .38 Spl.

Both are 9mm in diameter and similar weight, I just think it's interesting. See, I was technically right, the best kind.


Depends on just how pedantic one wants to get, 9mm is so commonly considered synonymous with 9x19mm or 9mm Parabellum or 9x19mm Parabellum or just plain 9x19 as to be essentially interchangeable with and referring directly to that cartridge.

That and diameter alone has very little to do with a cartridge's power. .357 Magnum is technically "9mm" as well, but nobody in their right mind would try and hold it in the same category as .380 ACP or eve 9x19mm.
 
2013-01-05 03:01:02 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: The difference between you and I

Actually, it's the difference between you and me. And feel free to presume to speak for me anytime. That's your right under the 1st Amendment. It's the one right there before the 2nd. You know, the first one.

Yes, you've got me on that one. Feel free to pound your tiny little fists in outrage.

/like i said
//you aren't getting them
///ever

/never said I wanted 'em
//you can have 'em
///wouldn't want to take away the only thing a man's got in life


Actually, the only thing I have in life is a life in the software development industry. I have a lovely wife, and summer cabin and a boat on Lake Superior. You're not taking anything away from me. I suspect you're very young. Good luck to you.
 
2013-01-05 03:01:23 AM

UsikFark: bikkurikun: So, no only in the US is burglary is a crime punishable by death, but it is also all right for civilians to execute them without warning, and without any sort of trial?

You make it sound like an American with a gun is an officer of the law. They aren't. The trial and punishment, settlement, if you will, happens later when real officers of the law get involved.

What happened in the article may have been legal, but it wasn't a trial.


You'll grow up someday!
 
2013-01-05 03:02:00 AM

UsikFark: iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

.38 ACP is 9mm.

Not quite

9x19mm is about twice as powerful as .38 ACP. 3 to 3 1/2 times more powerful than .380 ACP and .38 Spl.

Both are 9mm in diameter and similar weight, I just think it's interesting. See, I was technically right, the best kind.


Found this nice image about 9mm cartridges.  I imagine you'd use the .357 Maximum to shoot through schools (Johnny Dangerously reference, not Newtown).

img39.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-05 03:03:14 AM

Lsherm: Loaded Six String: I think the only thing we've really gleaned so far from this thread is that Canada must be the most polite place on Earth. Except Quebec. I've heard some Quebecois can be down right nasty if you don't speak french in their presence.

I've told this story before, but the last time I was in Quebec I was smoking a cigarette on the street and a woman came up to me and asked me a question.  When I stared at her blankly, she asked another question.  I don't speak a word of French, but I had a pocket dictionary full of phrases I could use while traveling.  After two minutes of staring at her and explaining in what I would call "pidgin French" that I didn't speak French, she made the universal symbol for "cigarette" using two fingers and miming a puff.  I gave her a smoke.  I shouldn't have, because the French word for cigarette is farkign cigarette.  Instead of just asking for what she wanted, she was running down every slang term she could think of and getting irritated that I didn't understand her.

After she finished smoking it in silence next to me, she said "Thank you" as she walked away.  I KNOW she spoke at least a little English.  They aren't that rude in France.  Actually, most people in France are really nice as long as you try.  Everyone in Quebec treats your inability to speak fluent French the same way a mother would treat a 10 year-old child who just shiat his pants.  They aren't just disappointed, they can't believe you've made it this far in life.


While I agree with the sentiment that it is at best unwise not to learn the local language when traveling to a foreign country, they are bilingual by tradition if not law, and one of the two languages they speak is also spoken in most countries around the world as a second language (english). Precisely because of people like her is the reason I want to learn sign language. They can take their lingual arrogance and shove it up their ass when I sign precisely that to them.

/Alright, I want to learn sign language for a more legitimate reason than that.
//Of all languages, you'd think there would be one common global sign language.
 
2013-01-05 03:03:47 AM

iq_in_binary: Depends on just how pedantic one wants to get,


Whatever it takes to prove I'm right. This is the internet.
 
2013-01-05 03:04:56 AM
What kind of country do we live in now where you can't do a little house exploring without getting shot? Ban guns now.
 
2013-01-05 03:07:51 AM

iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

.38 ACP is 9mm.

Not quite

9x19mm is about twice as powerful as .38 ACP. 3 to 3 1/2 times more powerful than .380 ACP and .38 Spl.

Both are 9mm in diameter and similar weight, I just think it's interesting. See, I was technically right, the best kind.

Depends on just how pedantic one wants to get, 9mm is so commonly considered synonymous with 9x19mm or 9mm Parabellum or 9x19mm Parabellum or just plain 9x19 as to be essentially interchangeable with and referring directly to that cartridge.

That and diameter alone has very little to do with a cartridge's power. .357 Magnum is technically "9mm" as well, but nobody in their right mind would try and hold it in the same category as .380 ACP or eve 9x19mm.


Aren't the bullets used in the US' primary rifles about the same diameter as a .22? I thought they just basically little slugs with a lot more get up and go than the 22 Rimfires you learn to shoot with as a kid.
 
2013-01-05 03:08:01 AM

Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?


The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.
 
2013-01-05 03:11:02 AM

Lsherm: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

.38 ACP is 9mm.

Not quite

9x19mm is about twice as powerful as .38 ACP. 3 to 3 1/2 times more powerful than .380 ACP and .38 Spl.

Both are 9mm in diameter and similar weight, I just think it's interesting. See, I was technically right, the best kind.

Found this nice image about 9mm cartridges.  I imagine you'd use the .357 Maximum to shoot through schools (Johnny Dangerously reference, not Newtown).

[img39.imageshack.us image 800x600]


My PA-63 fires the shortest round of the bunch. Pretty accurate though.
 
2013-01-05 03:14:34 AM

Sherman Potter: I have a lovely wife, and summer cabin and a boat on Lake Superior. You're not taking anything away from me. I suspect you're very young. Good luck to you.


Lake Superior is lovely. I spent many a summer in the UP myself. Tahquamenon Falls. But that was a long time ago. When I was much, much younger.
 
2013-01-05 03:14:41 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.


You sound poor. Or fat. Or bitter.

In any case, I don't care.
 
2013-01-05 03:16:31 AM
...I've either just read about 2 1/2 pages worth of troll or I've actually witnessed the emergence of one of the stupidest people I've ever seen here.

Not sure which.
 
2013-01-05 03:17:02 AM
Injuries were something like this:

two in the face, one knocking out some teeth (they found teeth at the scene)
one in the liver
one in the lungs
one in the neck

She fullly stitched the guy, just happened to miss something vital. He could still die from his wounds.

6 shots isn't a whole lot considering shot placement luck. People that want to limit this woman, and ones like her to 6 shots would prefer that she and her children die or get raped in this situation most of the time (I imagine shooting people half way tends to piss them off)

15, 17, or even 30 rounds is entirely appropriate for ONE attacker. Let alone hypothetical two or three.

Use a proper defense round and gun. 9mm is barely adequate. .38 spl is for backup guns and deep cover. Use a .45, a shot gun, a rifle or something like that. (or, a whole lot more 9mm)

Anyway, the advice "don't answer the door" is bad advice. Go to the door, yell "fark off!" and don't OPEN the door.

It's not known if the guy knew she was there. For his purposes, and for hers the justifiable shooting it doesn't matter. BUT, maybe he would have turned and run away had she made it clear she was home.

Not having to shoot is definitely preferable, so give the guy every out you can. But, shoot, and shoot to stop the threat if threatened.

/I hope he dies.
//And his family dies in a horrible fiery accident with a freak collision with any ambulance chasing lawyer they may seek to hire.
///While those posters from the "BradyGroup" may be fake, they reflect the reality of their position.
 
2013-01-05 03:17:20 AM

Sherman Potter: You sound poor. Or fat. Or bitter.


Wait, wait -- I know the next one. Liberal? Amirite? What do I win?

In any case, I don't care.

Then what is your point, other than arguing on fark.com?
 
2013-01-05 03:19:30 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: You sound poor. Or fat. Or bitter.

Wait, wait -- I know the next one. Liberal? Amirite? What do I win?

In any case, I don't care.

Then what is your point, other than arguing on fark.com?


That I don't care.
 
2013-01-05 03:21:41 AM

Sherman Potter: That I don't care.


I can see how much you don't care. You know, from all the responses you keep typing.
 
2013-01-05 03:22:10 AM

Ima4nic8or: Holocaust Agnostic: There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.

Notice however that she didnt need an AR-15 to defend her home.


Which one is it that you anti gun wankers want to get rid of? The handgun or the rifle? I keep hearing ban the handguns, they kill more people. Then they turn around and start banning rifles because they have a pistol grip or a muzzle brake.

You should lovingly and delicately go fark yourself, you hand wringing panty waist.

/I'm a liberal and I think people should have the right to defend themselves. People will continue killing people. It's nasty, it's sad but disarming ourselves won't stop it.
// And if you are a troll go fark yourself with a splintery pine branch, trolling is the most idiotic thing I've seen to happen on the Internet and I've seen a Justin Bieber video.
 
2013-01-05 03:23:03 AM

jafiwam: ///While those posters from the "BradyGroup" may be fake, they reflect the reality of their position.


www.motherjones.com

/not fake
 
2013-01-05 03:23:06 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter: That I don't care.

I can see how much you don't care. You know, from all the responses you keep typing.


I'm going with poor.
 
2013-01-05 03:23:53 AM

Lsherm: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

.38 ACP is 9mm.

Not quite

9x19mm is about twice as powerful as .38 ACP. 3 to 3 1/2 times more powerful than .380 ACP and .38 Spl.

Both are 9mm in diameter and similar weight, I just think it's interesting. See, I was technically right, the best kind.

Found this nice image about 9mm cartridges.  I imagine you'd use the .357 Maximum to shoot through schools (Johnny Dangerously reference, not Newtown).

[img39.imageshack.us image 800x600]


Heh, yeah, that cartridge lasted all of a year. Ruger made 400 Blackhawks before they found out about the flame cutting and discontinued it. The Auto Mag (AMP) is something that only a reloader and gunsmith can even attempt to make a gun for (I don't even think you can find chamber reamers for it any more), and involves necking down a .44 Magnum case down to .357, and 9x29 Winchester Magnum I'm pretty sure is a myth, basically half of those cartridges are either mythological or so rare that they might as well be.
 
2013-01-05 03:27:00 AM

Loaded Six String: While I agree with the sentiment that it is at best unwise not to learn the local language when traveling to a foreign country,


Oh for fark's sake, I can't learn the language of every country I'll visit or have visited.  Hell, I lived in China for five years and barely learned Mandarin, much less Cantonese.  I didn't learn Thai, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hindi, or Tagalog, either.  I'm not obnoxious about it - I hired translators/guides when I was going "off site" for areas that weren't tourist friendly, but if you make learning the language part of a vacation no one would travel anywhere.  It takes too much time.

I don't expect people to speak English when I go somewhere and English isn't the language.  I didn't expect anyone in Germany to speak English, but a surprising number of people did, and moreover, those that did would help me out if I ran into someone that didn't.  Quebec was the only place where people who could speak English took pride in pretending that they didn't.  It's farking bizarre.  I've run into a few Chinese tourists on the DC metro and even though I'm still the worst Mandarin speaker in the world, I'll try to help them if they're trying to figure out the system.  They barely speak English, I barely speak Mandarin, but it's just being polite, you know?

My favorite language exchange happened on a cruise at a port stop in Portugal.  My wife and I were extremely hungover and we stumbled into a restaurant on the port at 9am and the two guys there didn't speak any English.  We didn't speak Portugese.  However, through a very simple process of pointing at the menu, we managed to get breakfast.  The whole time both guys were jabbering in a language I didn't understand punctuated with "John Wayne" and a nod of their heads towards me sitting at a table.  As far as I know to this day beans, bread, and barely cooked eggs are a "John Wayne" breakfast.  My wife fared worse - she was "boobs" - or so I think.  They were the only recognizable words we understood the entire time we were there.
 
2013-01-05 03:27:26 AM

Rufus Lee King: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

I hear you. Instead of shooting the poor guy, she should have invited him to stay for dinner, where they could talk about the wonder of diversity in our nation.


Y'see, gun owners wouldn't have such a bad rep if a good lot weren't so unabashedly racist.
 
2013-01-05 03:28:37 AM

Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.


Liar. Plenty of Farkers would like to do just that.

Plenty of Democrats would like to do just that.

You must be a democrat, sanctimonious garbage such as what you just spewed is their bread and butter.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.

Posted by them.

They'd prefer rape over self defense if the self defense includes using a gun.
 
2013-01-05 03:29:30 AM

doglover: iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: UsikFark: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

.38 ACP is 9mm.

Not quite

9x19mm is about twice as powerful as .38 ACP. 3 to 3 1/2 times more powerful than .380 ACP and .38 Spl.

Both are 9mm in diameter and similar weight, I just think it's interesting. See, I was technically right, the best kind.

Depends on just how pedantic one wants to get, 9mm is so commonly considered synonymous with 9x19mm or 9mm Parabellum or 9x19mm Parabellum or just plain 9x19 as to be essentially interchangeable with and referring directly to that cartridge.

That and diameter alone has very little to do with a cartridge's power. .357 Magnum is technically "9mm" as well, but nobody in their right mind would try and hold it in the same category as .380 ACP or eve 9x19mm.

Aren't the bullets used in the US' primary rifles about the same diameter as a .22? I thought they just basically little slugs with a lot more get up and go than the 22 Rimfires you learn to shoot with as a kid.


.223 Remington/5.56 NATO uses a slug that is pretty much exactly the same diameter. It's also twice the weight and moving twice as fast. .22 LR at the muzzle MIGHT get you 200 ft/lbf, 5.56 NATO will get you 1300 ft/lbf or so.

BIG difference. And 1300 ft/lbf is pretty wimpy as far as rifle cartridges go.
 
2013-01-05 03:30:19 AM

Sherman Potter: I'm going with poor.


Would it help if I said yes? I'm sure it would be a relief to know that I'm no threat to your manhood. That way you can sleep tonight. With the hallway light on.
 
2013-01-05 03:30:49 AM

Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.

Article doesn't say he tore the door down. He could've smashed a little window and turned the cylinder, or deformed the door frame and pushed the door open, or smashed the whole thing to bits like the koolaid man. I'm just going by what I know, which ain't much.

Anyway, people from different cultures are going to believe different things. The internet lets these people talk to each other to learn their similarities and differences, which is cool. The weird part is how we both feel sorry for the other's civilization.


Well, we're glad that you have declared yourself to be in favor of thievery.
 
2013-01-05 03:31:01 AM

jafiwam: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.

Liar. Plenty of Farkers would like to do just that.

Plenty of Democrats would like to do just that.

You must be a democrat, sanctimonious garbage such as what you just spewed is their bread and butter.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.

Posted by them.

They'd prefer rape over self defense if the self defense includes using a gun.


You're ADORABLE.
 
2013-01-05 03:32:52 AM

jafiwam: This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.


Stupid?

Or full of sh*t?
 
2013-01-05 03:34:13 AM
If you break into someone's house you deserve whatever you get. No one should ever break into a home expecting to leave alive under any circumstances. I don't care what the reason for the break-in is. How can a homeowner possibly be expected to discern the intent of a (possibly armed) stranger who has forced the door open?

I do not own or plan on owning any guns, but I fully support the rights of others to do so.
 
2013-01-05 03:35:04 AM
iq_in_binary:
Heh, yeah, that cartridge lasted all of a year. Ruger made 400 Blackhawks before they found out about the flame cutting and discontinued it. The Auto Mag (AMP) is something that only a reloader and gunsmith can even attempt to make a gun for (I don't even think you can find chamber reamers for it any more), and involves necking down a .44 Magnum case down to .357, and 9x29 Winchester Magnum I'm pretty sure is a myth, basically half of those cartridges are either mythological or so rare that they might as well be.

I didn't mean for it to be anything but a reference for relative cartridge sizes.  It's not my image, I just found it.

What the hell did the revolver that shot the Maximum look like?  The cylinder must have been pretty long.
 
2013-01-05 03:35:57 AM

jafiwam: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.

Liar. Plenty of Farkers would like to do just that.

Plenty of Democrats would like to do just that.

You must be a democrat, sanctimonious garbage such as what you just spewed is their bread and butter.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.

Posted by them.

They'd prefer rape over self defense if the self defense includes using a gun.


Dude, you're making Glenn Beck look sane. Stop it.
 
2013-01-05 03:37:48 AM

iq_in_binary: Dude, you're making Glenn Beck look sane. Stop it.


Sometimes hanging in on a thread ends up being worth it. This is one of those times.
 
2013-01-05 03:38:36 AM

Lsherm: Loaded Six String: While I agree with the sentiment that it is at best unwise not to learn the local language when traveling to a foreign country,

Oh for fark's sake, I can't learn the language of every country I'll visit or have visited.  Hell, I lived in China for five years and barely learned Mandarin, much less Cantonese.  I didn't learn Thai, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hindi, or Tagalog, either.  I'm not obnoxious about it - I hired translators/guides when I was going "off site" for areas that weren't tourist friendly, but if you make learning the language part of a vacation no one would travel anywhere.  It takes too much time.

I don't expect people to speak English when I go somewhere and English isn't the language.  I didn't expect anyone in Germany to speak English, but a surprising number of people did, and moreover, those that did would help me out if I ran into someone that didn't.  Quebec was the only place where people who could speak English took pride in pretending that they didn't.  It's farking bizarre.  I've run into a few Chinese tourists on the DC metro and even though I'm still the worst Mandarin speaker in the world, I'll try to help them if they're trying to figure out the system.  They barely speak English, I barely speak Mandarin, but it's just being polite, you know?

My favorite language exchange happened on a cruise at a port stop in Portugal.  My wife and I were extremely hungover and we stumbled into a restaurant on the port at 9am and the two guys there didn't speak any English.  We didn't speak Portugese.  However, through a very simple process of pointing at the menu, we managed to get breakfast.  The whole time both guys were jabbering in a language I didn't understand punctuated with "John Wayne" and a nod of their heads towards me sitting at a table.  As far as I know to this day beans, bread, and barely cooked eggs are a "John Wayne" breakfast.  My wife fared worse - she was "boobs" - or so I think.  They were the only recognizable ...


Perhaps I should have clarified, key words and phrases. The traveler extends the hand of good will by attempting not to be left helpless by a language barrier. The locals grasp that hand by exercising patience and an attempt at understanding someone foreign to their land and culture, not by snearing down their nose at them. Hope that clears up my opinion on the matter.
 
2013-01-05 03:38:59 AM

bikkurikun: So, no only in the US is burglary is a crime punishable by death, but it is also all right for civilians to execute them without warning, and without any sort of trial?


You are confusing judicial punishment, which is implemented after the fact, with personal defense by a crime victim. The two concepts, while frequently confused by dishonest and irrational civilian disarmament advocates, are not in any way logically equivalent.
 
2013-01-05 03:41:47 AM

Lsherm: iq_in_binary:
Heh, yeah, that cartridge lasted all of a year. Ruger made 400 Blackhawks before they found out about the flame cutting and discontinued it. The Auto Mag (AMP) is something that only a reloader and gunsmith can even attempt to make a gun for (I don't even think you can find chamber reamers for it any more), and involves necking down a .44 Magnum case down to .357, and 9x29 Winchester Magnum I'm pretty sure is a myth, basically half of those cartridges are either mythological or so rare that they might as well be.

I didn't mean for it to be anything but a reference for relative cartridge sizes.  It's not my image, I just found it.

What the hell did the revolver that shot the Maximum look like?  The cylinder must have been pretty long.


world.guns.ru
.357 Magnum
picturearchive.gunauction.com
.357 Maximum

You can shoot pretty much the whole rimmed .38/.357 Family through that puppy. .357 Max, .357 Mag, .38 Spl, .38 Long Colt, .38 Short. Pretty nifty.
 
2013-01-05 03:58:50 AM
I dunno. I've had five of these in me and didn't feel disoriented at all...

www.neonsign.com
 
2013-01-05 04:08:58 AM

Flakeloaf: Loaded Six String: So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.

Yes. Not necessarily.

And being unwilling to trust somebody and actually perceiving a real threat of harm from someone who is, at least according to the article, merely standing there holding my stuff, is still quite a leap. Being a thief ain't a hangin crime.


If you surprise an intruder and he is holding your big-screen in both arms, in most US states you could not use deadly force. However, if you cannot tell what the motive is, then even LEO are going to tell you to make the conservative decision to preserve your own safety.

In states I am familiar with, an aggressor would have to demonstrate means of harming you (weapons, size differential, etc), motive to harm you, and opportunity to harm you. You can't just shoot someone for messing with your car, for instance. You can't shoot someone running away with your TV. You can't shoot someone threatening to stab you from the other side of a fence. You can't run someone down to shoot him unless there is risk of imminent harm-- i.e. to someone he is chasing.

If you are hiding in a closet with your two kids trying to avoid having to shoot someone and an intruder opens the door, he has demonstrated opportunity. If he is larger than you, he has demonstrated means of harming you-- plus he might still have his crowbar. Who knows what the motive is unless he is obviously jingling with silverware and stolen goods? From the perspective of the mother in the closet, it would not be unreasonable for her to assume that he was searching the house for her and her kids. That's fear for you.

Getting shot in the face *is* extreme for stealing. But she didn't know if that was his motive when he opened the closet door. And he probably didn't have the courtesy to announce it beforehand.
 
2013-01-05 04:09:34 AM

jafiwam: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.

Liar. Plenty of Farkers would like to do just that.

Plenty of Democrats would like to do just that.

You must be a democrat, sanctimonious garbage such as what you just spewed is their bread and butter.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.

Posted by them.

They'd prefer rape over self defense if the self defense includes using a gun.


Seriously? I saw that floating around and thought it was a fake.

/Had to take a break from the thread, girlfriend woke up and wanted to watch "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
//Strange movie
 
2013-01-05 04:16:43 AM

Fail in Human Form: jafiwam: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.

Liar. Plenty of Farkers would like to do just that.

Plenty of Democrats would like to do just that.

You must be a democrat, sanctimonious garbage such as what you just spewed is their bread and butter.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.

Posted by them.

They'd prefer rape over self defense if the self defense includes using a gun.

Seriously? I saw that floating around and thought it was a fake.

/Had to take a break from the thread, girlfriend woke up and wanted to watch "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
//Strange movie


It's fake.

And while there are legitimate cases of this sentiment being preached to citizens by officials, there is no way in bug farking hell the Brady Campaign would go anywhere near something like that.
 
2013-01-05 04:16:52 AM

Fail in Human Form: Seriously? I saw that floating around and thought it was a fake.


It is.
 
2013-01-05 04:26:19 AM

illannoyin: I dunno. I've had five of these in me and didn't feel disoriented at all...

[www.neonsign.com image 500x414]


Oh hell, you can drink 12 of those in 4 hours and still walk without a problem.  Currs laght is barely beer.
 
2013-01-05 04:31:22 AM

Gyrfalcon: vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

Lessee...

Since you keep guns in your bathroom, you're drinking beer at 3 a.m. and stumbling to the outhouse in the middle of the night, I'm guessing that this story ends with you hearing the cat fighting a raccoon, you grabbing the nearest firearm (probably a sawed-off 30-30), lunging for the door and forgetting you have your pants around your ankles, falling facedown into the mud at the entrance of the outhouse with the shotgun between your knees, the blast blows off your left big toe, and the recoil clips your balls, leaving you swearing and limping back to the house bleeding and with a burn it's going to be tough to explain to your wife.

But the raccoon gets away.


A 30-30 is not a shotgun.
 
2013-01-05 04:36:39 AM

Flakeloaf: Loaded Six String: So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.

Yes. Not necessarily.

And being unwilling to trust somebody and actually perceiving a real threat of harm from someone who is, at least according to the article, merely standing there holding my stuff, is still quite a leap. Being a thief ain't a hangin crime.


Tell that to all the horse thieves who have been hung.
 
2013-01-05 04:40:09 AM

redhook: Flakeloaf: Loaded Six String: So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.

Yes. Not necessarily.

And being unwilling to trust somebody and actually perceiving a real threat of harm from someone who is, at least according to the article, merely standing there holding my stuff, is still quite a leap. Being a thief ain't a hangin crime.

Tell that to all the horse thieves who have been hung.


Apparently, in civilized societies criminals are allowed to invade homes without fear of injury. Evidently, civilized societies recognize home invasion as a legally protected right.
 
2013-01-05 04:42:45 AM

redhook: Tell that to all the horse thieves who have been hung.


Uhhhhh... did you actually check or something?
 
2013-01-05 04:43:26 AM
"He asked that her name be withheld"
""My wife's a hero," the woman's husband, Donnie Herman, told Channel"....

Has this been covered?

/2+2
 
2013-01-05 04:48:55 AM

jafiwam: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.

Liar. Plenty of Farkers would like to do just that.

Plenty of Democrats would like to do just that.

You must be a democrat, sanctimonious garbage such as what you just spewed is their bread and butter.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.

Posted by them.

They'd prefer rape over self defense if the self defense includes using a gun.


I used to just dislike the Brady Bunch.  Now I loath them.
 
2013-01-05 04:50:43 AM

Flakeloaf: Gyrfalcon: But the simple fact is that breaking into someone's house, no matter what YOU may think is right or wrong, gives the homeowner a rebuttable presumption that the intruder is there to do him harm, and an affirmative right to shoot first and ask questions later.

If the presumption is rebuttable, the right to kill cannot be absolute.


This shooting was 100% legal per Georgia law. If the perp didn't want to get shot he shouldn't have been committing a felony.

Link

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 
2013-01-05 04:51:46 AM

OgreMagi: jafiwam: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.

Liar. Plenty of Farkers would like to do just that.

Plenty of Democrats would like to do just that.

You must be a democrat, sanctimonious garbage such as what you just spewed is their bread and butter.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.

Posted by them.

They'd prefer rape over self defense if the self defense includes using a gun.

I used to just dislike the Brady Bunch.  Now I loath them.


It's fake. For all their faults, there is no way in hell the Brady Campaign would go anywhere near something like that.
 
2013-01-05 04:52:31 AM

redhook: Flakeloaf: Loaded Six String: So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.

Yes. Not necessarily.

And being unwilling to trust somebody and actually perceiving a real threat of harm from someone who is, at least according to the article, merely standing there holding my stuff, is still quite a leap. Being a thief ain't a hangin crime.

Tell that to all the horse thieves who have been hung.


Considering that at that time in the history of the wild west, a family horse could well be their livelihood and survival.  It's pretty damn hard to plow a field without one (possible, but immensely difficult).  That puts a whole different perspective on the level of the crime and the punishment.
 
2013-01-05 05:30:04 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.


Ruger sp101
Use 158 grain plus p hydro shock for best results
 
2013-01-05 05:32:45 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: redhook: Tell that to all the horse thieves who have been hung.

Uhhhhh... did you actually check or something?


This is common knowledge. Horse thievery was one of the worst things a criminal could do in the old west.

Link
 
2013-01-05 05:37:29 AM
So she calls hubby at work, says there's a black man ringing the doorbell and he tells her to grab the kids and the gun and hide while he calls 911.

Is there ANYONE reading this who advises their wife this way?

I got no problem with burglars getting shot, I'm just not convinced that's what happened here. At least, I'm not sure enough to laud this lady as a hero. The first thing I'd do is verify the husband's location when this went down but it sounds like the sheriff is comfortable with the story he's got now.
 
2013-01-05 06:00:26 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So she calls hubby at work, says there's a black man ringing the doorbell and he tells her to grab the kids and the gun and hide while he calls 911.

Is there ANYONE reading this who advises their wife this way?

I got no problem with burglars getting shot, I'm just not convinced that's what happened here. At least, I'm not sure enough to laud this lady as a hero. The first thing I'd do is verify the husband's location when this went down but it sounds like the sheriff is comfortable with the story he's got now.


I'm pretty sure if some weird guy came knocking and made it clear he's going to keep doing so until someone answered my girlfriend would call me up to ask me if I knew anything about it too. And she's been on the mat with me to learn things like a guillotine and a scissor kick to arm bar combo.

Sometimes the first thought that hits your head is "Is this guy here to unplug a toilet?" and you try to figure that out. Her reaction was one of "let's figure this out," not one of "what's the best way to kill this guy and get away with it."

We're social animals. Our mates our often our closest social contacts and calendars, when unscheduled or unexpected social events come knocking, it's a pretty damn common response to check with our closest social peers to try and figure out how to navigate the situation.
 
2013-01-05 06:11:06 AM

Ima4nic8or: Holocaust Agnostic: There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.

Notice however that she didnt need an AR-15 to defend her home.


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

She emptied her entire clip and managed to hit the guy 5/6 times. And he was still a threat. He was able to operate a vehicle. He's still alive. It took him being unable to count to realize she was out of bullets.

If he'd had a friend with him, if she'd been a worse a shot, if he'd been trying to hurt her, she'd probably be dead. An AR-15 would have been plenty to protect her family from 2-3 criminals. Why would you want to limit a law abiding citizen's ability to protect her children?
 
2013-01-05 06:48:33 AM

jafiwam: hurp durp


Ah, ye olde "Snopes said it's real! I won't bother linking it, though" trick. Damned if I haven't been suckered by this BS before.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bradyad.asp
 
2013-01-05 06:50:34 AM

Ima4nic8or: Holocaust Agnostic: There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.

Notice however that she didnt need an AR-15 to defend her home.


Next time, there might be 3,4,5 home invaders. farkin A we're going to something with capacity. I'm surprised this was greenlit in this Libtard echo chamber.
 
2013-01-05 06:59:06 AM
Also: When you've got five Bulleits in you, you may feel a bit disoriented.
 
2013-01-05 07:06:09 AM
Aye, Laddy..

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-05 07:11:55 AM
It takes cops a while to get around in Ga. We have a lot of traffic and it takes up to 20 minutes for the cops to get there. So they encourage us to kill the home invaders for them. That poor fool would have been in much worse shape if the cops caught him first, they know how to kill in fewer shots and would likely have unloaded on him.

Some posters here are saying people should not defend themselves, you are wrong and a bad person for suggesting it.
 
2013-01-05 07:45:45 AM
Everyone that comes to the door or steals isn't a killer.. that much is true. Honestly, having never fired a gun at another person before, if someone broke in with a crowbar, I'd probably fire at them without asking questions. I'm sure I'd be panicking, nervous, and I have doubts about my ability to hit them in that state. I'd also be afraid (living in an apartment) that they'd close the distance and just club me to death before I got a shot off. In the moment, I can't imagine you have much time to consider these things. It's only 20 feet or so from my door to my bed.

Having friends that have been raped as well, I can't imagine them wanting to "play it safe" or ask them first. Movies have these home invasions where the owners are in a master bedroom somewhere, and it takes several minutes for an invader to get there. I think some of my female friends that have been victims of sexual violence have situations more similar to me... a few feet from the door to the bed.

It may seem unjust to some that a person that possibly had no intent to kill was shot like that, but I think for a lot of us that aren't soldiers/cops... it would be a difficult situation to be cool and rational in.
 
2013-01-05 07:55:18 AM

Flakeloaf: hundreddollarman: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

0/10.

No. Totally serious. Someone standing in your livingroom taking your things has not yet earned death.

You see, when you live in a place where people aren't afraid of shadows, you can have things like rights and a functioning legal system and still have the right to protect yourself. A person who hasn't threatened anyone with violence can't be shot on sight no matter what they're doing. That's what it's like and it's kinda neat.


Wrong. My possessions earned with blood, sweat and tears are much more valuable than the life of any thief that aims to steal them.
 
2013-01-05 07:57:38 AM
s9.postimage.org
 
2013-01-05 08:00:31 AM

Harry Knutz: iq_in_binary: He pried open a door with a crowbar when the occupants of the house didn't open it. If that's not threatening behavior I don't know what is.

It's criminal behavior. Labeling it "threatening" is a matter of intent. And you cannot prove the man's intent was anything other than to commit theft.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Oh wait ... you're serious.
 
2013-01-05 08:21:58 AM

Harry Knutz: Boojum2k:

His behavior was threatening. It doesn't matter if his intent was to donate to Toys for Tots, he broke into her home.

His behavior was criminal. "Threatening" connotes intent to do personal harm. There is no evidence that's the case. The only evidence indicates B&E.

You would make a terrible attorney.

cdn.styleforum.net
 
2013-01-05 08:41:05 AM

Duke_leto_Atredes: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Ruger sp101
Use 158 grain plus p hydro shock for best results


Speer makes a 135 grain +p load that is especially tuned for short barrels.

Of course with the 101 you can also use 357s.

Still even in non +p, even from a snubbie the 38 ha enough power to go through a skull. the perp should be thanking whatever god he believes in
 
2013-01-05 08:58:17 AM

iq_in_binary: OgreMagi: jafiwam: Harry Knutz: Sherman Potter:

Then what is your point, other that arguing on fark.com?

The point, dear sir, is that your reflexive assumption that people want to take your guns away from you is entirely in your head and not based in any kind of actual fact. The point is that your implied threats of retaliation and/or violence toward the phantom threat of some boogieman come to take away your guns causes the sane among us to question your fitness to own them in the first place. The point is that your paranoia is dangerous and unseemly and worthy of mockery.

Enjoy your guns. It's your right. Just please stop with the "cold dead hands" nonsense. It's ridiculous.

Liar. Plenty of Farkers would like to do just that.

Plenty of Democrats would like to do just that.

You must be a democrat, sanctimonious garbage such as what you just spewed is their bread and butter.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 640x360]

This, (yes, even according to Snopes, who has now been corrected) appeared on the Brady Campaign's Facebook page.

Posted by them.

They'd prefer rape over self defense if the self defense includes using a gun.

I used to just dislike the Brady Bunch.  Now I loath them.

It's fake. For all their faults, there is no way in hell the Brady Campaign would go anywhere near something like that.


I think they got trolled by /b/. That pict was in fact posted by the admin of their Facebook page to their facebook page. How that person got to the conclusion it should be there or not... dunno. But, they thought enough of it to get it up there without thinking "gee, this isn't what we say" in the process.

Snopes has covered it, and they have screen shots of it.

Link

Feel free to look yourself.

The point is.the results (it going bad for this woman, and many others) is EXACTLY what Fiendstien, Brady Farks, and the rest of the gun grabbers want. Lawful citizens only left with weapons that can only partially defend against one small-ish attacker (this guy was big). If there were two people there, she'd be absolutely screwed. (maybe literally)

The whole "you don't NEED a high capacity clip" (magazine you ignorant pile of monkey shiat) is a big falsehood by people that can't think beyond their own little myopic minds.

They shouldn't fear guns, they should fear criminals like this one breaking into their homes.
 
2013-01-05 09:15:53 AM

Lsherm: iq_in_binary: Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.


If you get hit square in the face with a .380 Auto you are likely dropping after the first round.  Sounds like he got lucky, or she got excited.

She could have missed just as easily with a 9mm.

In an interview with the local tv news, the GPD spokesperson said they knew he was hit in the face as there were teeth scattered on the floor of the room where the shooting occurred.  It sounds like the perp was definitely lucky to have survived.
 
2013-01-05 09:19:06 AM

Satan's Dumptruck Driver: Flakeloaf: Loaded Six String: So you would accept him being shot if he was threatening? Violating someone's home is not threatening?

Yes, in my opinion he could be of higher moral character by not trying to take from other people. That you would place your trust in a stranger who forced their way into your home not to harm you seems very naive to me.

Yes. Not necessarily.

And being unwilling to trust somebody and actually perceiving a real threat of harm from someone who is, at least according to the article, merely standing there holding my stuff, is still quite a leap. Being a thief ain't a hangin crime.

If you surprise an intruder and he is holding your big-screen in both arms, in most US states you could not use deadly force. However, if you cannot tell what the motive is, then even LEO are going to tell you to make the conservative decision to preserve your own safety.

In states I am familiar with, an aggressor would have to demonstrate means of harming you (weapons, size differential, etc), motive to harm you, and opportunity to harm you. You can't just shoot someone for messing with your car, for instance. You can't shoot someone running away with your TV. You can't shoot someone threatening to stab you from the other side of a fence. You can't run someone down to shoot him unless there is risk of imminent harm-- i.e. to someone he is chasing.

If you are hiding in a closet with your two kids trying to avoid having to shoot someone and an intruder opens the door, he has demonstrated opportunity. If he is larger than you, he has demonstrated means of harming you-- plus he might still have his crowbar. Who knows what the motive is unless he is obviously jingling with silverware and stolen goods? From the perspective of the mother in the closet, it would not be unreasonable for her to assume that he was searching the house for her and her kids. That's fear for you.

Getting shot in the face *is* extreme for stealing. But she didn't know if that was his moti ...


Not true... In Texas simple property theft is dependable with deadly force.

pulled from another article:
"Traditionally, if you felt your life was threatened, you could use deadly force to protect yourself, except if you could get away safely where nobody got hurt, then you were required to do that," Sandra Thompson, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, told the newspaper. "Even if somebody is just stealing from your front yard, and they are not threatening anybody, (and) there's no threat of being hurt at all, you can kill them, if it's reasonably necessary protecting your property."



About a year or two ago, there was a guy who shot at someone that was just stealing a potted plant from the front of his house. I don't remember if he actually hit the thief or not, and It doesn't really matter. The cops gave him a pat on the back and said good job...

Thank God I live in Texas
 
2013-01-05 09:19:39 AM
i got ants in the pants
i'm discombobulated
give me a calmative!!

deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-05 09:20:41 AM
dependable Defensible
 
2013-01-05 09:27:04 AM

jafiwam: Snopes has covered it, and they have screen shots of it.


They have pics of what is apparently a "fake photoshopped screenshot". You are arguing in an incredibly dishonest fashion.
 
2013-01-05 09:30:20 AM
We're all thinking about it: Something smells fishy.
 
2013-01-05 09:45:16 AM

Fano: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.

Article doesn't say he tore the door down. He could've smashed a little window and turned the cylinder, or deformed the door frame and pushed the door open, or smashed the whole thing to bits like the koolaid man. I'm just going by what I know, which ain't much.

Anyway, people from different cultures are going to believe different things. The internet lets these people talk to each other to learn their similarities and differences, which is cool. The weird part is how we both feel sorry for the other's civilization.

Well, we're glad that you have declared yourself to be in favor of thievery.


Because the only possible penalty for thievery is death. Does everyone on your planet run everywhere they go?
 
2013-01-05 09:46:29 AM

Harry Knutz: Loaded Six String: This guy with a crowbar, Jack Nickolson with an axe, either one breaks down a door they have no business passing through it is a threatening act

Again, it's a criminal act, not necessarily a threatening one. This is precisely why there are varying degrees when prosecuting felonious acts.


Entering a person's house without their permission is in itself threatening as defined by law. This is a fact.
 
2013-01-05 09:50:57 AM

Harry Knutz: The man's intent was labeled "threatening" without any sort of proof.


That he broke into the house is all the proof required by law.
 
2013-01-05 09:54:09 AM

Flakeloaf: Moral jury still out.


Only if you are a moron.
 
2013-01-05 10:01:57 AM

Flakeloaf: Fano: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.

Article doesn't say he tore the door down. He could've smashed a little window and turned the cylinder, or deformed the door frame and pushed the door open, or smashed the whole thing to bits like the koolaid man. I'm just going by what I know, which ain't much.

Anyway, people from different cultures are going to believe different things. The internet lets these people talk to each other to learn their similarities and differences, which is cool. The weird part is how we both feel sorry for the other's civilization.

Well, we're glad that you have declared yourself to be in favor of thievery.

Because the only possible penalty for thievery is death. Does everyone on your planet run everywhere they go?


On my planet, "death by misadventure" is a possible outcome of thievery.
 
2013-01-05 10:04:47 AM

Fano: Flakeloaf: Fano: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.

Article doesn't say he tore the door down. He could've smashed a little window and turned the cylinder, or deformed the door frame and pushed the door open, or smashed the whole thing to bits like the koolaid man. I'm just going by what I know, which ain't much.

Anyway, people from different cultures are going to believe different things. The internet lets these people talk to each other to learn their similarities and differences, which is cool. The weird part is how we both feel sorry for the other's civilization.

Well, we're glad that you have declared yourself to be in favor of thievery.

Because the only possible penalty for thievery is death. Does everyone on your planet run everywhere they go?

On my planet, "death by misadventure" is a possible outcome of thievery.


This is a common opinion in the US, I guess. Challenging the absoluteness of the truth of that idea on an American message board went exactly where a sensible person should've predicted it would go. Oh well.
 
2013-01-05 10:11:52 AM

iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.


Nope, .38, .380 Auto, and 9x18 Mak are basically equal, 9mm about 10% more energy.
Link
 
2013-01-05 10:15:45 AM

cleofus: iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.

Nope, .38, .380 Auto, and 9x18 Mak are basically equal, 9mm about 10% more energy.
Link


Oops, looked at velocity. Actually 380 and 9x18 Mak are close, 38 about 25% more, 9 about 60% more energy.
 
2013-01-05 10:18:51 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Ima4nic8or: Holocaust Agnostic: There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.

Notice however that she didnt need an AR-15 to defend her home.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

She emptied her entire clip and managed to hit the guy 5/6 times. And he was still a threat. He was able to operate a vehicle. He's still alive. It took him being unable to count to realize she was out of bullets.

If he'd had a friend with him, if she'd been a worse a shot, if he'd been trying to hurt her, she'd probably be dead. An AR-15 would have been plenty to protect her family from 2-3 criminals. Why would you want to limit a law abiding citizen's ability to protect her children?


Uh... Clip? ..38's are usually revolvers.

Only reason the idiot is stlll alive is she hit him in his hardass head.
 
2013-01-05 10:20:18 AM

Flakeloaf: Fano: Flakeloaf: Fano: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary: He didn't walk inside. He tore down the door with a crowbar. That was threatening behavior and justification alone to shoot him.

Article doesn't say he tore the door down. He could've smashed a little window and turned the cylinder, or deformed the door frame and pushed the door open, or smashed the whole thing to bits like the koolaid man. I'm just going by what I know, which ain't much.

Anyway, people from different cultures are going to believe different things. The internet lets these people talk to each other to learn their similarities and differences, which is cool. The weird part is how we both feel sorry for the other's civilization.

Well, we're glad that you have declared yourself to be in favor of thievery.

Because the only possible penalty for thievery is death. Does everyone on your planet run everywhere they go?

On my planet, "death by misadventure" is a possible outcome of thievery.

This is a common opinion in the US, I guess. Challenging the absoluteness of the truth of that idea on an American message board went exactly where a sensible person should've predicted it would go. Oh well.


Thieves are tolerated even less well in a lot of countries not named America. It's OK, you just come from a place where people scratch their heads after a theft and say "I guess he needed it more than me." Judging from the trolley way you've expressed this, we'll assume some Scandanavian nation that had viking thieves.
 
2013-01-05 10:24:21 AM

corronchilejano: We're all thinking about it: Something smells fishy.


Was this guy tricked into taking a crowbar to the door and rummaging through the house?
Was a mother of two just looking for someone to shoot while cowering in a closet?

If the answers are no and no, I'm not sure how much more clear cut it can get.
The sheriff must have been doing his best to keep from giggling about how the crook almost met his end.
 
2013-01-05 10:27:39 AM

Amusement: What bugs me is why she needed to shoot 5 times. Gun control ain't about gun possession. Seems sorta inhumane to shoot five times to the face. Thinks ammo is semi wad cutter 158 grain soft lead @ 725 feet per second. 9mm is unimpressed.


I have always told my wife to keep pulling the trigger until she runs out of ammo, then change magazines. Say what you will about the possibility of multiple intruders, I'll still take shocking violence of action over any Steven Seagal BS.
 
2013-01-05 10:27:42 AM

Canton: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Canton: Clearly she knew how to handle the gun.

Six shots point blank and the guy drove away(ok, not far).

I didn't say her aim was perfect. The situation must have been a bit stressful. Someone did mention earlier that she should have aimed for the center of mass. And they're right. But it doesn't sound like there was much time to think in that situation, and if she'd never shot a dude before. So yeah, I'd say she handled the gun well.

/Also, she didn't shoot herself or her kids by accident, which is a huge plus.


A perfect reason why law-abiding citizens shouldn't be limited to 10 rounds. People don't realize how quickly you can go through those many shots. In a high stress situation most people won't reliably hit their mark as well as this lady did.

Kudos to this lady for defending her family. This lady may have been raped or murdered in front of her kids of the pro-ban people got their way.
 
2013-01-05 10:32:58 AM

Harry Knutz: iq_in_binary: Actions speak louder than words. He broke into an occupied home. If he didn't intend to harm anyone it would stand to reason he would have waited until no one was home. Nobody gives a flying fark what his intentions were, nobody is psychic. When you take actions that can easily be perceived as intending others harm, like breaking into an occupied home, intent doesn't matter worth a damn, perception does. His victims have absolutely no moral duty to explain their actions to you when they were in reaction to a traumatic crime.

If you were paying attention, I very clearly said that the woman's actions were justified under the law. She shot him precisely because she perceived a threat, so Castle Doctrine would be in effect. There is no dispute, here. We agree on this. (I did not address whether her actions were morally justifiable, but for the record, I believe they were.)

Where we disagree is motive. Was the man actually intending to commit her harm? You don't know that. I don't know that. In a court of law, when filing charges, you need evidence. It would be hard to charge this man with anything other than B&E. That's the entire point I've been making. For the purposes of deciding what to charge this guy with, absent evidence not apparent in the article, you can't prove anything other than his intent was to break open a door.


Yeah, getting shot in face nearly half a dozen times precluded him from following through with his mens rea to their full conclusion. Funny how that works when people have the tools to defend themselves. Seriously, what's the argument here? The lady has no duty to retreat from her own home (and it sounds like she was basically cornered anyway). He was clearly breaking in and he had a weapon. The latter isn't even necessary for justifying this guy getting shot.
 
2013-01-05 10:33:58 AM
Let's ignore the gun issue today and instead look at the request for privacy in the article.

FTA: He [the husband] asked that her [the wife's] name be withheld.

Further down...

"My wife's a hero," the woman's husband, Donnie Herman, told Channel 2 Action News in a brief statement.

Way to keep the confidentiality, dudes.
 
2013-01-05 10:35:33 AM

CujoQuarrel: If you believe that someone breaking into your home (with a crowbar no less) is not threatening you are a moron.

She should have used a shotgun


Don't feel bad, the anti-gun folks are trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance of realizing if they had their way this lady would've been raped and/or murdered in front of her kids. They want to think if they make enough rules society will be perfect and that no grey areas exist.
 
2013-01-05 10:36:26 AM

UsikFark: bikkurikun: So, no only in the US is burglary is a crime punishable by death, but it is also all right for civilians to execute them without warning, and without any sort of trial?

You make it sound like an American with a gun is an officer of the law. They aren't. The trial and punishment, settlement, if you will, happens later when real officers of the law get involved.

What happened in the article may have been legal, but it wasn't a trial.


Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
 
2013-01-05 10:40:36 AM

HighZoolander: Of course, if she'd had a real gun he wouldn't have survived 5 shots to the head/neck.


needed to be said... I'm a .45 acp 'fan'
 
2013-01-05 10:43:45 AM

Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


Thank you, the article makes it sound like she ambushed him and shot him in the face.

No, he shouldn't have been there. Yes, he was a criminal. She was still wrong.

/ cue the "death to jaywalkers!" crowd
// b-b-but they're criminals! they don't deserve to live
 
2013-01-05 10:50:25 AM
I had no idea that the AR-15 came in .38 cal.
 
2013-01-05 10:52:11 AM

guises: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

Thank you, the article makes it sound like she ambushed him and shot him in the face.

No, he shouldn't have been there. Yes, he was a criminal. She was still wrong.

/ cue the "death to jaywalkers!" crowd
// b-b-but they're criminals! they don't deserve to live


Why are you so pro-rape? Is it because the body shuts down?
 
2013-01-05 10:54:27 AM
I'm new here.  Is it appropriate at this point in the thread to to ask for BIE?  Thanks.
 
2013-01-05 11:01:10 AM
I take it back, she was clearly camping
 
2013-01-05 11:03:54 AM

guises: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

Thank you, the article makes it sound like she ambushed him and shot him in the face.

No, he shouldn't have been there. Yes, he was a criminal. She was still wrong.

/ cue the "death to jaywalkers!" crowd
// b-b-but they're criminals! they don't deserve to live


Have you been diagnosed with a mental disorder yet? If not, seek professional help.

j/k, I know you are a troll
 
2013-01-05 11:18:35 AM

Another Government Employee: Uh... Clip? ..38's are usually revolvers.


Donning my cloak as Captain Pedantic...some revolvers can use clips. Moon clips are metal rings with evenly-spaced notches to accept cartridges for a revolver. They're an easy-use way to reload all of the chambers of a revolver at a time, and technically that she would have emptied her (moon) clip in shooting at this idiot.

But yeah, she probably wasn't using a clip. ;-)
 
2013-01-05 11:20:14 AM

simon_bar_sinister: I had no idea that the AR-15 came in .38 cal.


Dunno about .38 special or mag, but it does come in 9mm.

guises: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

Thank you, the article makes it sound like she ambushed him and shot him in the face.

No, he shouldn't have been there. Yes, he was a criminal. She was still wrong.

/ cue the "death to jaywalkers!" crowd
// b-b-but they're criminals! they don't deserve to live


The use of a crowbar goes beyond simple trespassing.
Home invasion is defined by whether you break into an occupied house, not whether the crook admits to knowing it was occupied at the time.

/don't wanna get shot, don't break into other people's homes. It's a simple concept.
 
2013-01-05 11:30:22 AM

Ima4nic8or: Holocaust Agnostic: There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.

Notice however that she didnt need an AR-15 to defend her home.


If she had one, she wouldn't have run out of ammunition while the guy was still moving.

If he had a friend with him she might have ended up dead.
 
2013-01-05 11:31:32 AM

simon_bar_sinister: I had no idea that the AR-15 came in .38 cal.


way south: Dunno about .38 special or mag, but it does come in 9mm.


.357 Mag/.38 Spc are difficult because of the wider rim of revolver cartridges. Not that it's impossible; there's a 1911-style pistol chambered in .357 Mag (CoonanInc.com), but that probably means the magazine for such an AR-15 upper would have to be specialized and much lower capacity than standard pistol calibers.
 
2013-01-05 11:35:57 AM

Flakeloaf: vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

If you live in a civilized country where people don't blow each other away for standing outside an outhouse, turn to 318.

If you live in a barren wasteland without a functioning shred of humanity, turn to 83.


Barren wasteland, barren wasteland!
 
2013-01-05 11:45:14 AM

guises: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.


I think the prying the door open with a crowbar kinda gave it away...
 
2013-01-05 11:46:03 AM

guises: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

Thank you, the article makes it sound like she ambushed him and shot him in the face.

No, he shouldn't have been there. Yes, he was a criminal. She was still wrong.



Did you read the same article as the rest of us?

his 37-year-old spouse[the mother], who works from home, collected the children and hid with them in a crawlspace adjoining her office. By that time, the intruder had forced his way into the three-story residence on Henderson Ridge Drive with a crowbar, authorities said. He allegedly rummaged through the home, eventually working his way up to the attic office.

"He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver," said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld.


Hiding in a closet, desperately trying to shield your two children behind you, keep them quiet, all while a dude with a crowbar smashes his way through your house before finally ripping open the last barrier between you and him?

Yeah, the article point blank tells you she used a complex lure to draw him into a classic crossfire ambush from an elevated position using her l33t skills learned from COLBLOPS,
 
2013-01-05 12:02:52 PM

iq_in_binary: Flakeloaf: iq_in_binary:iq_in_binary: Loaded Six String: iq_in_binary: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Fail in Human Form: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.

Yet, I'm sure you'd bar others from the use of arms you see "no need for". Interesting.

A five-shot .38? That's a legitimate self-defense implement.

Obviously not, there's a reason my gun control proposal has .380 Auto as the highest caliber that wouldn't need a tax stamp (for pistols, anyway), and this article is proof of why.

5 shots to the face and neck, and he's  stillalive. Had it been a 9mm, he'd have probably been dropped by the first round.

What about 9x18 makarov?

Is actually less powerful than .380 ACP, therefore under the threshold. I go by muzzle energy on average. Anything more than 350 or so ft/lbf is above the threshold for  semi-auto pistols.

Have you ever shot a Mak? I have. You should check your knowledge. It is definitely more powerful than a .380.

 
2013-01-05 12:08:53 PM

iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.


You know, I'm just going to have to call you out. You are wrong. Please stop spreading misinfo :)

.380 ACP - 95 gr (6 g) FMJ 980 ft/s (300 m/s) 203 ft·lbf (275 J)
.38 Special - 158 gr (10 g) LRN 770 ft/s (230 m/s) 208 ft·lbf (282 J)
 
2013-01-05 12:16:19 PM

iq_in_binary: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So she calls hubby at work, says there's a black man ringing the doorbell and he tells her to grab the kids and the gun and hide while he calls 911.

Is there ANYONE reading this who advises their wife this way?

I got no problem with burglars getting shot, I'm just not convinced that's what happened here. At least, I'm not sure enough to laud this lady as a hero. The first thing I'd do is verify the husband's location when this went down but it sounds like the sheriff is comfortable with the story he's got now.

I'm pretty sure if some weird guy came knocking and made it clear he's going to keep doing so until someone answered my girlfriend would call me up to ask me if I knew anything about it too. And she's been on the mat with me to learn things like a guillotine and a scissor kick to arm bar combo.

Sometimes the first thought that hits your head is "Is this guy here to unplug a toilet?" and you try to figure that out. Her reaction was one of "let's figure this out," not one of "what's the best way to kill this guy and get away with it."

We're social animals. Our mates our often our closest social contacts and calendars, when unscheduled or unexpected social events come knocking, it's a pretty damn common response to check with our closest social peers to try and figure out how to navigate the situation.


"Some weird guy", huh?

I notice neither you nor anyone else has answered the question.
 
2013-01-05 12:39:35 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iq_in_binary: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So she calls hubby at work, says there's a black man ringing the doorbell and he tells her to grab the kids and the gun and hide while he calls 911.

Is there ANYONE reading this who advises their wife this way?

I got no problem with burglars getting shot, I'm just not convinced that's what happened here. At least, I'm not sure enough to laud this lady as a hero. The first thing I'd do is verify the husband's location when this went down but it sounds like the sheriff is comfortable with the story he's got now.

I'm pretty sure if some weird guy came knocking and made it clear he's going to keep doing so until someone answered my girlfriend would call me up to ask me if I knew anything about it too. And she's been on the mat with me to learn things like a guillotine and a scissor kick to arm bar combo.

Sometimes the first thought that hits your head is "Is this guy here to unplug a toilet?" and you try to figure that out. Her reaction was one of "let's figure this out," not one of "what's the best way to kill this guy and get away with it."

We're social animals. Our mates our often our closest social contacts and calendars, when unscheduled or unexpected social events come knocking, it's a pretty damn common response to check with our closest social peers to try and figure out how to navigate the situation.

"Some weird guy", huh?

I notice neither you nor anyone else has answered the question.


woah! You are completely right... I cant believe I didn't see this before! This shooting has everything to do with the race of the burglar and nothing to do with criminal behavior of any kind. Thanks you!
 
2013-01-05 12:40:52 PM
I agree with others who think this sounds pretty fishy.

Most people would have just answered the door. She called for help before he even broke in. It sounds like she knew she might be dealing with someone dangerous.

Also, he had lots of opportunities to figure out she was home. Unless she had a camera, she must have peeked out a window to see who was at the door, and he could have seen that. She shouted to her kids not to open the door, and he could have heard that - or the kids (also, it suggests that 'don't open the door' isn't a standard household policy). Plus, for someone who theoretically was trying to burgle a house they knew was empty, he sure found her hiding upstairs pretty fast, since he did it before help arrived.

I suppose it's possible that she's somewhat paranoid, the burglar was very incautious, speedy, and thorough, and the cops took forever to arrive to an active home invasion. However, I think it's much more likely that she knew who he was, and he wasn't there to burgle the house.
 
2013-01-05 12:47:38 PM

glennizen: iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.

You know, I'm just going to have to call you out. You are wrong. Please stop spreading misinfo :)

.380 ACP - 95 gr (6 g) FMJ 980 ft/s (300 m/s) 203 ft·lbf (275 J)
.38 Special - 158 gr (10 g) LRN 770 ft/s (230 m/s) 208 ft·lbf (282 J)


Good +P 38s will get you up over 300 ft/lbs
 
2013-01-05 12:49:55 PM

Mitrovarr: I agree with others who think this sounds pretty fishy.

Most people would have just answered the door. She called for help before he even broke in. It sounds like she knew she might be dealing with someone dangerous.

Also, he had lots of opportunities to figure out she was home. Unless she had a camera, she must have peeked out a window to see who was at the door, and he could have seen that. She shouted to her kids not to open the door, and he could have heard that - or the kids (also, it suggests that 'don't open the door' isn't a standard household policy). Plus, for someone who theoretically was trying to burgle a house they knew was empty, he sure found her hiding upstairs pretty fast, since he did it before help arrived.

I suppose it's possible that she's somewhat paranoid, the burglar was very incautious, speedy, and thorough, and the cops took forever to arrive to an active home invasion. However, I think it's much more likely that she knew who he was, and he wasn't there to burgle the house.


Perhaps where you live, most people would answer the door. In many other places people have been warned about exactly this type of scenario occurring. Why? Because it has become a popular tactic w/ career criminals (knock on doors - then burgle). They teach each other these advanced techniques in jail/prison. In L.A., the police and neighborhood watch associations have had community meetings and bulletins about this very thing. Answering the door by opening it is the last thing a woman w/ children should do. Many burglars/robbers will come through the door if they hear a woman or child answer it because they know they will be easily overpowered.
 
2013-01-05 12:54:01 PM
I'm curious why you people keep going on about the 'penalty' for breaking into someone's home being death.

It isn't.

Death is just a potential consequence, the penalty is probably 1-5 years in prison.
 
2013-01-05 12:55:52 PM

dforkus: glennizen: iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.

You know, I'm just going to have to call you out. You are wrong. Please stop spreading misinfo :)

.380 ACP - 95 gr (6 g) FMJ 980 ft/s (300 m/s) 203 ft·lbf (275 J)
.38 Special - 158 gr (10 g) LRN 770 ft/s (230 m/s) 208 ft·lbf (282 J)

Good +P 38s will get you up over 300 ft/lbs


Yes, I know. I was giving data for standard loads.
 
2013-01-05 12:58:44 PM

Mitrovarr: I agree with others who think this sounds pretty fishy.

Most people would have just answered the door. She called for help before he even broke in. It sounds like she knew she might be dealing with someone dangerous.
...
However, I think it's much more likely that she knew who he was, and he wasn't there to burgle the house.


Seriously, were you there? Sometimes body language can tell a person a lot about a situation. Whatever the case she was right.

Also, he had lots of opportunities to figure out she was home.

Because criminals are uniformly brilliant, logical, rational, and kind. They will always stop when they realize a home is occupied right? Home Invasion? Silly me making up words that don't exist

The surgeon general has determined there is a correlation between breaking down some else door with a crowbar and getting shot in the face, adjust your behavior accordingly.
 
2013-01-05 01:07:32 PM

Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iq_in_binary: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So she calls hubby at work, says there's a black man ringing the doorbell and he tells her to grab the kids and the gun and hide while he calls 911.

Is there ANYONE reading this who advises their wife this way?

I got no problem with burglars getting shot, I'm just not convinced that's what happened here. At least, I'm not sure enough to laud this lady as a hero. The first thing I'd do is verify the husband's location when this went down but it sounds like the sheriff is comfortable with the story he's got now.

I'm pretty sure if some weird guy came knocking and made it clear he's going to keep doing so until someone answered my girlfriend would call me up to ask me if I knew anything about it too. And she's been on the mat with me to learn things like a guillotine and a scissor kick to arm bar combo.

Sometimes the first thought that hits your head is "Is this guy here to unplug a toilet?" and you try to figure that out. Her reaction was one of "let's figure this out," not one of "what's the best way to kill this guy and get away with it."

We're social animals. Our mates our often our closest social contacts and calendars, when unscheduled or unexpected social events come knocking, it's a pretty damn common response to check with our closest social peers to try and figure out how to navigate the situation.

"Some weird guy", huh?

I notice neither you nor anyone else has answered the question.

woah! You are completely right... I cant believe I didn't see this before! This shooting has everything to do with the race of the burglar and nothing to do with criminal behavior of any kind. Thanks you!


Still didn't answer the question.
 
2013-01-05 01:08:21 PM

glennizen: Because it has become a popular tactic w/ career criminals (knock on doors - then burgle). They teach each other these advanced techniques in jail/prison. In L.A., the police and neighborhood watch associations have had community meetings and bulletins about this very thing. Answering the door by opening it is the last thing a woman w/ children should do.


This is the opposite of true and dangerous advice. A burglar is looking for an easy house to rob: they don't want a woman with children, they want an empty house. If you answer the door, the standard tactic is to pretend you're an insurance salesman or some other BS then go on to the next house when they ask you to leave. Example:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2011/07/glassboro_polic e _the_stranger.html

Not answering the door creates dangerous situations. At that point they've already broken in, and most likely if you surprise them they'll run away. They might not however: you've caught the burglar by surprise and it's hard to predict exactly what people will do when they're panicking. Also in this situation the two of you are already inside - out of the public eye.

If someone knocks on the door you should answer it. If you have reason to be suspicious, or if you're just paranoid, then you don't have to open the door, but the most important thing is to make sure that they know someone is home.
 
2013-01-05 01:20:43 PM

guises: glennizen: Because it has become a popular tactic w/ career criminals (knock on doors - then burgle). They teach each other these advanced techniques in jail/prison. In L.A., the police and neighborhood watch associations have had community meetings and bulletins about this very thing. Answering the door by opening it is the last thing a woman w/ children should do.

This is the opposite of true and dangerous advice. A burglar is looking for an easy house to rob: they don't want a woman with children, they want an empty house. If you answer the door, the standard tactic is to pretend you're an insurance salesman or some other BS then go on to the next house when they ask you to leave. Example:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2011/07/glassboro_polic e _the_stranger.html

Not answering the door creates dangerous situations. At that point they've already broken in, and most likely if you surprise them they'll run away. They might not however: you've caught the burglar by surprise and it's hard to predict exactly what people will do when they're panicking. Also in this situation the two of you are already inside - out of the public eye.

If someone knocks on the door you should answer it. If you have reason to be suspicious, or if you're just paranoid, then you don't have to open the door, but the most important thing is to make sure that they know someone is home.


You are right - IF their intent is to burgle. But this has morphed into knock and invade in California. But frankly, I don't live in those areas targeted in this way and I haven't attended any of the meetings or read any of the bulletins. So I don't know what the authorities are advising. Except for the U.K. - I have read that the authorities there command subjects to allow the robbers to have their way and to submit meekly to their demands.
 
2013-01-05 01:21:14 PM

guises: glennizen: Because it has become a popular tactic w/ career criminals (knock on doors - then burgle). They teach each other these advanced techniques in jail/prison. In L.A., the police and neighborhood watch associations have had community meetings and bulletins about this very thing. Answering the door by opening it is the last thing a woman w/ children should do.

This is the opposite of true and dangerous advice. A burglar is looking for an easy house to rob: they don't want a woman with children, they want an empty house. If you answer the door, the standard tactic is to pretend you're an insurance salesman or some other BS then go on to the next house when they ask you to leave. Example:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2011/07/glassboro_polic e _the_stranger.html

Not answering the door creates dangerous situations. At that point they've already broken in, and most likely if you surprise them they'll run away. They might not however: you've caught the burglar by surprise and it's hard to predict exactly what people will do when they're panicking. Also in this situation the two of you are already inside - out of the public eye.

If someone knocks on the door you should answer it. If you have reason to be suspicious, or if you're just paranoid, then you don't have to open the door, but the most important thing is to make sure that they know someone is home.



1) If someone knocks on your door it might not be a burglar. It might be the religious whackos and not answering is a perfectly viable response
2) The last attempted burglary at my house happed with 2 cars in the driveway, lights on all over the house and my friend watching TV with the sound on about 15 feet from the patio door that the burglar was trying to pry open. They had to know someone was home.
3) I've had a friend get assaulted in her home when she opened the door to a knock and he just pushed past her
 
2013-01-05 01:21:48 PM

guises: glennizen: Because it has become a popular tactic w/ career criminals (knock on doors - then burgle). They teach each other these advanced techniques in jail/prison. In L.A., the police and neighborhood watch associations have had community meetings and bulletins about this very thing. Answering the door by opening it is the last thing a woman w/ children should do.

This is the opposite of true and dangerous advice. A burglar is looking for an easy house to rob: they don't want a woman with children, they want an empty house. If you answer the door, the standard tactic is to pretend you're an insurance salesman or some other BS then go on to the next house when they ask you to leave. Example:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2011/07/glassboro_polic e _the_stranger.html

Not answering the door creates dangerous situations. At that point they've already broken in, and most likely if you surprise them they'll run away. They might not however: you've caught the burglar by surprise and it's hard to predict exactly what people will do when they're panicking. Also in this situation the two of you are already inside - out of the public eye.

If someone knocks on the door you should answer it. If you have reason to be suspicious, or if you're just paranoid, then you don't have to open the door, but the most important thing is to make sure that they know someone is home.


No way Jose. I've fallen for the old candy gram trick before.
 
2013-01-05 01:24:41 PM

guises: glennizen: Because it has become a popular tactic w/ career criminals (knock on doors - then burgle). They teach each other these advanced techniques in jail/prison. In L.A., the police and neighborhood watch associations have had community meetings and bulletins about this very thing. Answering the door by opening it is the last thing a woman w/ children should do.

This is the opposite of true and dangerous advice. A burglar is looking for an easy house to rob: they don't want a woman with children, they want an empty house. If you answer the door, the standard tactic is to pretend you're an insurance salesman or some other BS then go on to the next house when they ask you to leave. Example:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2011/07/glassboro_polic e _the_stranger.html

Not answering the door creates dangerous situations. At that point they've already broken in, and most likely if you surprise them they'll run away. They might not however: you've caught the burglar by surprise and it's hard to predict exactly what people will do when they're panicking. Also in this situation the two of you are already inside - out of the public eye.

If someone knocks on the door you should answer it. If you have reason to be suspicious, or if you're just paranoid, then you don't have to open the door, but the most important thing is to make sure that they know someone is home.


And BTW: Fnck you! "Dangerous" "Opposite of true" If I don't answer the door and the mf'er breaks in, yeah, it's going to be dangerous for him. Just like the fncker in TFA.
 
2013-01-05 01:39:04 PM
Nina_Hartley's_Ass
Still didn't answer the question.


Because its a retarded question deserving of mockery
 
2013-01-05 01:42:10 PM

guises: glennizen: Because it has become a popular tactic w/ career criminals (knock on doors - then burgle). They teach each other these advanced techniques in jail/prison. In L.A., the police and neighborhood watch associations have had community meetings and bulletins about this very thing. Answering the door by opening it is the last thing a woman w/ children should do.

This is the opposite of true and dangerous advice. A burglar is looking for an easy house to rob: they don't want a woman with children, they want an empty house. If you answer the door, the standard tactic is to pretend you're an insurance salesman or some other BS then go on to the next house when they ask you to leave. Example:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2011/07/glassboro_polic e _the_stranger.html

Not answering the door creates dangerous situations. At that point they've already broken in, and most likely if you surprise them they'll run away. They might not however: you've caught the burglar by surprise and it's hard to predict exactly what people will do when they're panicking. Also in this situation the two of you are already inside - out of the public eye.

If someone knocks on the door you should answer it. If you have reason to be suspicious, or if you're just paranoid, then you don't have to open the door, but the most important thing is to make sure that they know someone is home.


No thanks... if someone is going to break into my house, I want to be home when it happens. This enables me to protect my stuff. It seems like the best advice for gun owners is to always pretend to be away from home unless you know someone is coming over.
 
2013-01-05 01:44:37 PM

Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass
Still didn't answer the question.

Because its a retarded question deserving of mockery


Sorry, I didn't realize most gun owners keep their women hidden in the attic all day. You guys are weirder than I thought.
 
2013-01-05 01:46:02 PM

Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass
Still didn't answer the question.

Because its a retarded question deserving of mockery



I lol'd
 
2013-01-05 01:50:12 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass
Still didn't answer the question.

Because its a retarded question deserving of mockery

Sorry, I didn't realize most gun owners keep their women hidden in the attic all day. You guys are weirder than I thought.


That's ok, we all learn something new every day.
 
2013-01-05 02:08:19 PM

redhook: Pray 4 Mojo: redhook: Tell that to all the horse thieves who have been hung.

Uhhhhh... did you actually check or something?

This is common knowledge. Horse thievery was one of the worst things a criminal could do in the old west.

Link


Hung. Look it up.
 
2013-01-05 02:33:23 PM

Loaded Six String: Flakeloaf: vudukungfu: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

dtfa;
but
I'm sleeping one night in the middle of farking nowhere. which is where I live, And I wake up having to pee, being as I like Beer and I'm taking a pill that makes me pee. and I get up at 0:30 AM and hustle to the Bath room. And I'm in there and I have at my disposal a few ballistic toys, the kind you have if you're in an outhouse an don't want sneaked up upon and I hear someone approach and breach my threshold.
/Click *like* and see what happens next,

If you live in a civilized country where people don't blow each other away for standing outside an outhouse, turn to 318.

If you live in a barren wasteland without a functioning shred of humanity, turn to 83.

Turn to page 95 if you have the dignity and honor to not steal from or harm anyone else even if you're starving.

Jackass.


Eh, he could've sold the crowbar.
 
2013-01-05 03:05:00 PM
Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.
 
2013-01-05 03:09:30 PM

bratface: Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.


When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!
 
2013-01-05 03:13:56 PM

bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.


As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things!

/still no answer to my question...
 
2013-01-05 03:20:53 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So she calls hubby at work, says there's a black man ringing the doorbell and he tells her to grab the kids and the gun and hide while he calls 911.

Is there ANYONE reading this who advises their wife this way?


To directly answer your question...I'm not married, but if she said, "ringing the doorbell," I wouldn't advise her to do such a thing. If she said, "banging on the door like he's trying to break it in" and/or I heard something of the sort...yes, I would advise my hypothetical wife to take the kid(s) and gun(s) [and the phone] and find a safe place in the house while I call 911.

Is that a sufficient answer to your question?
 
2013-01-05 03:24:47 PM

stevarooni: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: So she calls hubby at work, says there's a black man ringing the doorbell and he tells her to grab the kids and the gun and hide while he calls 911.

Is there ANYONE reading this who advises their wife this way?

To directly answer your question...I'm not married, but if she said, "ringing the doorbell," I wouldn't advise her to do such a thing. If she said, "banging on the door like he's trying to break it in" and/or I heard something of the sort...yes, I would advise my hypothetical wife to take the kid(s) and gun(s) [and the phone] and find a safe place in the house while I call 911.

Is that a sufficient answer to your question?


When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work.

"Get the kids and hide," he told his wife.

As he dialed 911, his 37-year-old spouse, who works from home, collected the children and hid with them in a crawlspace adjoining her office.


Yes.
 
2013-01-05 03:24:54 PM
As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things! -Nina_Hartley's_Ass

I'd like to sit down with a questionnaire and discover what state the perps mind is. "Sir, are you a raging psychopath or merely delusional from meth?" Time is a factor in this case. Seems there was a movie scene that demonstrated my point.
media.screened.com
 
2013-01-05 03:32:39 PM

Ima4nic8or: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

He absolutely deserves it. He was a threat to the lives of the homeowner and her children. No sympathy here. He pounded on the door even after the women shouted at her kids not to answer it. He knew someone was home when he broke in.



I read an article about this that stated he had a crowbar to force the door open. The lady retreated and the sumbiatch chased her down. If he had died from his injuries, nothing of value would have been lost.
 
2013-01-05 03:36:21 PM

craxyd: Ima4nic8or: Flakeloaf: Also, why is he a home invader? He pounded on teh door long enough to reasonably think nobody was home, then went inside and started stealing things. So far I don't see anything that deserves getting shot in the face for.

He absolutely deserves it. He was a threat to the lives of the homeowner and her children. No sympathy here. He pounded on the door even after the women shouted at her kids not to answer it. He knew someone was home when he broke in.


I read an article about this that stated he had a crowbar to force the door open. The lady retreated and the sumbiatch chased her down. If he had died from his injuries, nothing of value would have been lost.


That's not at all what this article says.
 
2013-01-05 03:45:52 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.

As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things!

/still no answer to my question...


This gun owner wants an end to the war on drugs, legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and saved funds diverted to healthcare (including mental)... Crazy, right?
 
2013-01-05 03:53:27 PM

HBK: iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.

Really?

.380 ACP rounds are so much lighter, and .38 rounds are freaking huge. I always assumed .38 was a more powerful round.



Exactly
 
2013-01-05 03:56:06 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.

As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things!

/still no answer to my question...


Ok fine. Yes. I imagine at that point, they both knew something was clearly amiss and that it had the potential to escalate into a dangerous situation. They knew they were dealing with something more than an overzealous girl scout.

My husband would have advised me to do the same thing. I live in Georgia, not far from where this happened. If I am home by myself, I don't even consider opening the door for someone I don't know. Lady did exactly the right thing.

There are endless "what if's" and "well she could have done this" scenarios. Nothing but speculation and arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm just shocked that some people would risk the lives of their wives and children on trying to decipher the intent of someone who just broke into their home.
 
2013-01-05 03:56:14 PM

craxyd: HBK: iq_in_binary: Fail in Human Form: iq_in_binary: Are you talking about a .38 Special

Yes

.380 ACP is a bit of a different animal. It's about 35% more powerful than .38 Special for one, you may want to keep that in mind. Maybe if she had used .380 Auto instead of .38 Special he might have been turfed.

Really?

.380 ACP rounds are so much lighter, and .38 rounds are freaking huge. I always assumed .38 was a more powerful round.


Exactly


If you read a couple of posts down you'll see I was thinking  .38 ACP, not .380 ACP. Yes there is a difference.
 
2013-01-05 04:00:19 PM

Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.

As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things!

/still no answer to my question...

This gun owner wants an end to the war on drugs, legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and saved funds diverted to healthcare (including mental)... Crazy, right?


yeah. how u can be for the end of the war on drugs, and ALSO be for ending the legalization of marijuana

farking batshiat
 
2013-01-05 04:04:42 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.

As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things!

/still no answer to my question...


Oh, we're concerned about mental health care, and I'm sure many of us will support the president when he gives the topic more than lip service. In the meantime, Obama's going after the guns as soon as humanly possible.

/like the Fark libtards assured us he would never do and we were paranoid gun nuts
 
2013-01-05 04:13:27 PM

JmBa: Yes.


Black man rings the doorbell, you hide in the attic til Daddy gets home?

Why do you ever leave the attic?
 
2013-01-05 04:14:53 PM

Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.

As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things!

/still no answer to my question...

This gun owner wants an end to the war on drugs, legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and saved funds diverted to healthcare (including mental)... Crazy, right?


This gun owner, too. I even own a few of the scary "assault rifles" -- you know, the ones involved in less than 350 deaths a year.

It's the gang violence that's the problem here, not the guns. Mexico has worse gang violence and stricter gun control laws, but guess what? Their homicide rate is much higher than ours. Legalizing drugs, even just pot, would put a dent in our homicide rate. People are fighting over black market profits, just like during alcohol prohibition. Diverting money from the war on drugs and applying it to drug treatment and mental healthcare would put another dent in it.

These are serious solutions to a serious problem. I believe there are 2.5 million AR-15's in this country. There are 350 murders per year involving ANY type of rifle. The obvious solution is to take all of the AR-15's away -- at least that's the way it works in the mind of a liberal. Can someone please explain that to me?

These are real solutions, not
 
2013-01-05 04:15:47 PM
- "These are real solutions, not"

goddamnitsomuch
 
2013-01-05 04:29:11 PM

Doom MD: Don't feel bad, the anti-gun folks are trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance of realizing if they had their way this lady would've been raped and/or murdered in front of her kids.


You are mistaken: no cognitive dissonance exists. Advocates of total civilian disarmament (which I acknowledge to be a smaller subset of gun control advocates) believe that the woman being raped and/or murdered would have been a preferable outcome to the events that did occur.
 
2013-01-05 04:32:10 PM

kim jong-un: I'm curious why you people keep going on about the 'penalty' for breaking into someone's home being death.

It isn't.

Death is just a potential consequence, the penalty is probably 1-5 years in prison.


Opponents of self-defense are often irrational and stupid, and thus they are psychologically incapable of comprehending a logical difference between a legal penalty applied by the state after due process and an act of self-defense used by a private citizen during the commission of a crime.
 
2013-01-05 04:52:26 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.

As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things!

/still no answer to my question...

This gun owner wants an end to the war on drugs, legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and saved funds diverted to healthcare (including mental)... Crazy, right?

yeah. how u can be for the end of the war on drugs, and ALSO be for ending the legalization of marijuana

farking batshiat



Maybe you would like to read that again and then change your reply.
 
2013-01-05 04:59:48 PM

guises: glennizen: Because it has become a popular tactic w/ career criminals (knock on doors - then burgle). They teach each other these advanced techniques in jail/prison. In L.A., the police and neighborhood watch associations have had community meetings and bulletins about this very thing. Answering the door by opening it is the last thing a woman w/ children should do.

This is the opposite of true and dangerous advice. A burglar is looking for an easy house to rob: they don't want a woman with children, they want an empty house. If you answer the door, the standard tactic is to pretend you're an insurance salesman or some other BS then go on to the next house when they ask you to leave. Example:

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2011/07/glassboro_polic e _the_stranger.html

Not answering the door creates dangerous situations. At that point they've already broken in, and most likely if you surprise them they'll run away. They might not however: you've caught the burglar by surprise and it's hard to predict exactly what people will do when they're panicking. Also in this situation the two of you are already inside - out of the public eye.

If someone knocks on the door you should answer it. If you have reason to be suspicious, or if you're just paranoid, then you don't have to open the door, but the most important thing is to make sure that they know someone is home.


Perhaps -- and please inform me if my suggestion is unreasonable in enlightened and civilized societies -- responsibility should be placed upon the would-be burglar to not attempt to commit any crime at all, rather than upon a legal home occupant to attempt to guess the motives of a criminal.
 
2013-01-05 05:09:19 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JmBa: Yes.

Black man rings the doorbell, you hide in the attic til Daddy gets home?

Why do you ever leave the attic?


How do you know its a black man through locked doors?
Are You the kind of racist who assumes all home invaders are black?

/there's a difference between polite Jehovah's Witness knocking and loud furious rapist knocking.
/the home owner probably had a good sense of who would or wouldn't come calling in the middle of the day. Unusual noises or unannounced visitors are good reason to react defensively.
/since the front door is the last physical barrier between you and an unwelcome guest, its best to keep it locked until you know who's on the other side.
 
2013-01-05 05:13:22 PM

way south: Are You the kind of racist who assumes all home invaders are black?


The kind that reads articles.
 
2013-01-05 05:22:35 PM
This clearly means that we should limit the strength and capacity of guns.
 
HBK
2013-01-05 05:29:24 PM
Whenever people who I am not expecting knock on my door they always have a long pitch about selling me magazine subscriptions.

I'm glad you're learning sales skills, I guess, but I can get all these magazine subscriptions for $5 from amazon and then I at least know they'll show up and it isn't a scam. And I really don't care that you have a bunch of kids.
 
2013-01-05 06:56:16 PM
When I took my CCW class, the sherrif that was teaching walked through some home intruder scenarios. Basically, you don't know at first if the guy is there to do you (or your family) bodily harm or merely ransack your stereo, and in my state deadly force is ok in the first instance but not the second. He advised us to basically dial 911, then get your weapon. Then LOUDLY announce to the intruder(s): I have called 911; the cops are on their way; I have a gun; GET OUT! Leave an 'exit' for the intruder to escape from (don't block their exit if possible). If they're there to merely ransack your house, you've informed them that a) you're home; b) cops are en route; c) you're armed; and d) there's a way out. Cop basically said if the intruder doesn't leave, then you can assume they're there to do you harm and you're then ok to use deadly force.
 
2013-01-05 07:21:19 PM
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-05 07:47:04 PM

Maul555: Jon iz teh kewl: Maul555: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.

As is the sudden lack of concern over the War on Drugs or this man's access to mental health care. It's almost like Fark's gun rights advocates never really cared about those things!

/still no answer to my question...

This gun owner wants an end to the war on drugs, legalization of marijuana for recreational use, and saved funds diverted to healthcare (including mental)... Crazy, right?

yeah. how u can be for the end of the war on drugs, and ALSO be for ending the legalization of marijuana

farking batshiat


Maybe you would like to read that again and then change your reply.


your a peach, why should i listen to u
i have dementia
 
2013-01-05 08:30:53 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: JmBa: Yes.

Black man rings the doorbell, you hide in the attic til Daddy gets home?

Why do you ever leave the attic?


I see you tired of no one taking your trollbait.
 
2013-01-05 09:31:47 PM

bratface: Weird story. There just seems to be something left out?
Also, this bit is a head scratcher "said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman's narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld." But they name the husband?

I would bet that the 'burgler' didn't hear the women when she told her child not to answer the door. That's why he entered the house.

The article also says that he had time to enter the house ransack two 'floors' and then enter the attic and
then try to search the attic. When he opens the door where the family is hiding Mrs. Herman shot him. She then was able to escape to a neighbors, then the 'burgler' left. Where were the cops? Why did it take so long for them to respond? This story is just weird.


It's kind of rural where this house is and Walton County doesn't have that big of a Sheriff's dept.
 
2013-01-05 10:33:06 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: way south: Are You the kind of racist who assumes all home invaders are black?

The kind that reads articles.


I did read the article and so should you.

The mother assumed it was a solicitor until the ringing got persistent, but She never opened the door.
She had no way to know it was a black person or any reason to fear our blackness.
She had every reason to be concerned about some stranger not taking a hint that no one wants to open up.

You, on the other hand, would trivialize the stereotype of a scary black person.
I find that rather offensive.
 
2013-01-05 11:07:36 PM

Dimensio: Perhaps -- and please inform me if my suggestion is unreasonable in enlightened and civilized societies -- responsibility should be placed upon the would-be burglar to not attempt to commit any crime at all, rather than upon a legal home occupant to attempt to guess the motives of a criminal.


This is a very strange sentiment to me, but it seems quite prevalent in this thread. Maybe you can fill me in: Why does this matter? I can only see that question being relevant in a courtroom.

Outside of court, we live our lives and do the best we can to avoid coming to harm and avoid harming those around us. Looking at the situation in the article, she could have answered the door and he would have moved on to another, empty, house. He would have robbed that house and he may or may not have been caught by the police. This is bad of course but no one would have been put in any danger and no one would have gotten shot. A much better situation all around and all she had to do was answer the door.
 
2013-01-06 12:17:40 AM

way south: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: way south: Are You the kind of racist who assumes all home invaders are black?

The kind that reads articles.

I did read the article and so should you.

The mother assumed it was a solicitor until the ringing got persistent, but She never opened the door.
She had no way to know it was a black person or any reason to fear our blackness.
She had every reason to be concerned about some stranger not taking a hint that no one wants to open up.

You, on the other hand, would trivialize the stereotype of a scary black person.
I find that rather offensive.


My bad.

According to Walton County Chief Deputy Keith Brooks, the woman was working upstairs when she spotted a man outside the window of her home on Henderson Ridge Lane.
 
2013-01-06 04:54:00 AM

guises: Dimensio: Perhaps -- and please inform me if my suggestion is unreasonable in enlightened and civilized societies -- responsibility should be placed upon the would-be burglar to not attempt to commit any crime at all, rather than upon a legal home occupant to attempt to guess the motives of a criminal.

This is a very strange sentiment to me, but it seems quite prevalent in this thread. Maybe you can fill me in: Why does this matter? I can only see that question being relevant in a courtroom.

Outside of court, we live our lives and do the best we can to avoid coming to harm and avoid harming those around us. Looking at the situation in the article, she could have answered the door and he would have moved on to another, empty, house. He would have robbed that house and he may or may not have been caught by the police. This is bad of course but no one would have been put in any danger and no one would have gotten shot. A much better situation all around and all she had to do was answer the door.


The problem is that you are placing the responsibility ultimately on the person who is in this case committing no wrong. The homeowner was not breaking any laws by not answering her door. The homeowner was in her place of residence with her children apparently endangering no one and breaking no laws. Someone broke the law and forced his way into her residence.

Now we can say, if she had answered the door he would have gone away. Maybe the sound of her voice answering the door would have thrown him into a rage and caused him to burn down the house. Is that what if any less valid than saying it would have caused him to leave?

To me at least, it is very distressing that the tables be turned on someone who was doing nothing illegal and was the victim in this case. As if the situation was in some way her fault. She was put into a place where she did not want to be and made no effort to be in, meanwhile someone knowingly breaking the law put her in that situation. You do not vilify the victim of wrong doing, you lay the blame at the feet of the one doing wrong.

I mean if she didn't have belongings he wouldn't have wanted to take anything from her. Bam problem solved. Right? If she didn't have kids she would have wanted to protect them and so she wouldn't have used deadly force to do so. Problem solved. Right?
 
2013-01-06 04:55:36 AM
*she would NOT have wanted to protect them.

Sorry for the poor typing
 
2013-01-06 11:07:15 AM
Well, I appreciate the civil response.

I was not placing responsibility on the victim, I was saying that responsibility (blame) only matters in a courtroom. Outside of a courtroom, what matters are results. Certainly you can and should be upset by that, someone toodling around her house doing nothing wrong shouldn't have anything wrong happen to her. But things happen anyway, blame god if you want.

I'm deliberately abstracting this - if there were warnings of a big earthquake and everyone else took the sensible precaution of leaving their houses before the quake started and she didn't... Well, in a courtroom we would obviously blame the quake, it's the quake's responsibility to not destroy other people's houses. She didn't do anything wrong, after all. But ultimately that doesn't matter. Whether it's a bad quake or a bad person is irrelevant.

You point out that answering the door wouldn't have been a good idea if the person outside were planning some violence. A lot of people like to imagine these worst-case scenarios, but statistically she would have been far better off if she had just answered the door. Here, the FBI has a crime stats website:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/index-page

Irritatingly they don't have stats on home invasion, but if we put murder and forcible rape together we get just under one hundred thousand incidents in 2010. Violence as a result of home invasion would be some subset of that (I'm guessing a fairly small subset, but I can't back that up). Compare that to 2.16 million incidents of burglary.
 
2013-01-06 04:26:01 PM

guises: Outside of court, we live our lives and do the best we can to avoid coming to harm and avoid harming those around us. Looking at the situation in the article, she could have answered the door and he would have moved on to another, empty, house. He would have robbed that house and he may or may not have been caught by the police. This is bad of course but no one would have been put in any danger and no one would have gotten shot. A much better situation all around and all she had to do was answer the door.


A much better situation overall would be the criminal choosing not to be a criminal. His criminal actions resulted in his injury. In choosing to invade a home, he placed himself at risk of being shot by a legal home occupant.

Home occupants are not legally obligated to react to knocking on their doors in a prescribed way. Individuals are legally obligated not to illegally enter the homes of other persons.
 
2013-01-07 12:12:23 AM

guises: Well, I appreciate the civil response.

I was not placing responsibility on the victim, I was saying that responsibility (blame) only matters in a courtroom. Outside of a courtroom, what matters are results. Certainly you can and should be upset by that, someone toodling around her house doing nothing wrong shouldn't have anything wrong happen to her. But things happen anyway, blame god if you want.

I'm deliberately abstracting this - if there were warnings of a big earthquake and everyone else took the sensible precaution of leaving their houses before the quake started and she didn't... Well, in a courtroom we would obviously blame the quake, it's the quake's responsibility to not destroy other people's houses. She didn't do anything wrong, after all. But ultimately that doesn't matter. Whether it's a bad quake or a bad person is irrelevant.

You point out that answering the door wouldn't have been a good idea if the person outside were planning some violence. A lot of people like to imagine these worst-case scenarios, but statistically she would have been far better off if she had just answered the door. Here, the FBI has a crime stats website:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2010/index-page

Irritatingly they don't have stats on home invasion, but if we put murder and forcible rape together we get just under one hundred thousand incidents in 2010. Violence as a result of home invasion would be some subset of that (I'm guessing a fairly small subset, but I can't back that up). Compare that to 2.16 million incidents of burglary.


If she had opened the door, he wouldn't have needed a crowbar to get in.

Home invasions may be rarer, but as doctors say "it ain't rare if it's in your chair."

If he'd had been knocking and ringing the bell that long, it seems more than plausible that he intended to get in by any method.
 
2013-01-07 12:27:57 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: way south: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: way south: Are You the kind of racist who assumes all home invaders are black?

The kind that reads articles.

I did read the article and so should you.

The mother assumed it was a solicitor until the ringing got persistent, but She never opened the door.
She had no way to know it was a black person or any reason to fear our blackness.
She had every reason to be concerned about some stranger not taking a hint that no one wants to open up.

You, on the other hand, would trivialize the stereotype of a scary black person.
I find that rather offensive.

My bad.

According to Walton County Chief Deputy Keith Brooks, the woman was working upstairs when she spotted a man outside the window of her home on Henderson Ridge Lane.


So, having read that article, all I can say is: "haven't you done enough? Have you no sense of decency sir?" You have tried your damnest to make this a race bait story. The article YOU linked makes it clear that she went and hid with the gun after she saw him go back to his car to get a crowbar.

"Aha! You may say, "she knew the guy was black when she called her husband." To which non racist people would respond "she didn't know the guy, and neither did her husband." That is a red herring, and more a Rorschach test on your view of race relations.
 
2013-01-07 07:44:37 PM

Fano: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: way south: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: way south: Are You the kind of racist who assumes all home invaders are black?

The kind that reads articles.

I did read the article and so should you.

The mother assumed it was a solicitor until the ringing got persistent, but She never opened the door.
She had no way to know it was a black person or any reason to fear our blackness.
She had every reason to be concerned about some stranger not taking a hint that no one wants to open up.

You, on the other hand, would trivialize the stereotype of a scary black person.
I find that rather offensive.

My bad.

According to Walton County Chief Deputy Keith Brooks, the woman was working upstairs when she spotted a man outside the window of her home on Henderson Ridge Lane.

So, having read that article, all I can say is: "haven't you done enough? Have you no sense of decency sir?" You have tried your damnest to make this a race bait story. The article YOU linked makes it clear that she went and hid with the gun after she saw him go back to his car to get a crowbar.

"Aha! You may say, "she knew the guy was black when she called her husband." To which non racist people would respond "she didn't know the guy, and neither did her husband." That is a red herring, and more a Rorschach test on your view of race relations.


To rain
 
Displayed 348 of 348 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report