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 92
    More: Scary, gunshots, Gwinnett County  
•       •       •

9286 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-05 01:23:12 AM  
4 votes:

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 12:59:53 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:36:26 AM  
3 votes:

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 02:04:13 AM  
3 votes:

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 01:38:11 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2013-01-05 01:29:54 AM  
3 votes:

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 01:24:29 AM  
3 votes:

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 01:01:06 AM  
3 votes:
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 04:04:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:49:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:46:03 AM  
2 votes:

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 07:55:18 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:03:00 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:02:39 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:50:09 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:41:08 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:40:43 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:36:51 AM  
2 votes:

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.
HBK
2013-01-05 01:36:17 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:32:55 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:29:35 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:23:35 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:20:01 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:15:20 AM  
2 votes:
Moral of the story? Don't BnE lest you DIA.
2013-01-05 01:12:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:09:35 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:54:27 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:30:18 AM  
2 votes:
The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area

Nice shootin' Tex!
2013-01-05 04:52:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:45:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:42:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:39:04 PM  
1 votes:
Nina_Hartley's_Ass
Still didn't answer the question.


Because its a retarded question deserving of mockery
2013-01-05 01:24:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:58:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:54:01 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:40:52 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:45:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:20:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:03:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:32:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:24:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:18:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:01:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:50:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:46:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:11:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:32:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:30:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:27:00 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:31:27 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:18:45 AM  
1 votes:
Flakeloaf:

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

Congrates!!!
2013-01-05 02:14:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:12:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:10:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:10:30 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:10:29 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:05:40 AM  
1 votes:

doglover: It is not a crime to kill an outlaw


upload.wikimedia.org
2013-01-05 02:03:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:59:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:58:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:57:39 AM  
1 votes:

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.
HBK
2013-01-05 01:52:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:51:41 AM  
1 votes:
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!
2013-01-05 01:49:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:49:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:44:11 AM  
1 votes:

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.
HBK
2013-01-05 01:39:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:01 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:35:38 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-05 01:30:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:29:10 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:27:36 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:26:07 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:25:33 AM  
1 votes:
This will in no way devolve into a troll thread about guns.
HBK
2013-01-05 01:21:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:21:12 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-05 01:21:10 AM  
1 votes:

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.
HBK
2013-01-05 01:19:02 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:18:35 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-05 01:15:53 AM  
1 votes:
Guess which one is going to jail for this completely unprovoked attack?
2013-01-05 01:08:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:08:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:08:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:07:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:05:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:55:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:53:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:50:37 AM  
1 votes:
And before the Second Amendment Fappers show up, this "gun-grabbing" lib says she did what she had to do, justifiably.
2013-01-05 12:48:36 AM  
1 votes:
There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have guns.
2013-01-05 12:45:37 AM  
1 votes:

""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

 
Displayed 92 of 92 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report