Oklahoma mom shoots and kills intruder

[senordesol]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

 

[evilneko]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

Even if such ammo were readily available, it'd likely be shunned in favor of more lethal counterparts. The point is to to end the threat. I'd rather go for the option with the greatest chance of doing that.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

Har har.

At close range, rubber/plastic ammunation is almost as damaging as real ammunation, and it's still like getting punched in the gut further out than that.

You have to remember it's still a dense object flying at you the speed of a car many time over.

 

[galaktar]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

Har har.

At close range, rubber/plastic ammunation is almost as damaging as real ammunation, and it's still like getting punched in the gut further out than that.

You have to remember it's still a dense object flying at you the speed of a car many time over.

Unless the guy is on something. In that case there are a lot of smaller bullets that may not do the trick even.

 

[senordesol]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

Har har.

At close range, rubber/plastic ammunation is almost as damaging as real ammunation, and it's still like getting punched in the gut further out than that.

You have to remember it's still a dense object flying at you the speed of a car many time over.

And you have to remember when it comes to protecting myself and my children, I (and many others) will accept nothing less than the sure thing. I don't want to 'punch him in the gut', I want his guts gone.

 

[chadachada123]

But that's not what happened. In your scenario, many courts would determine that the victim (the knife-wielder) stepped outside his bounds by pursuing the attack on a defenseless asshole. So, yes, the bully would be able to fend off the victim-knife-guy *IF THE VICTIM LAID THE ATTACK ON FIRST.* That is, the fight must have stopped, followed by the victim openly attacking the wounded kid.

As it happened, though, the victim was completely in his right to defend himself with a flurry of stabs. In that moment, NO PERSON ALIVE would stop to see if the bully was incapacitated after just one stab unless they were seriously freaked out by the idea of stabbing another person. They would stab until the threat is definitely neutralized, which, given the adrenaline, would not be until, well, at least 8 or so stabs.

I'm afraid to say that I won't argue with people who use capslock to reinforce a point. If your argument needs that, then it's too weak to stand up on it's own.

Nothing personal, of course, but it keeps me out of arguments with people who use insults as arguments.

It's no different than using bold, which is an effective way of highlighting which parts should absolutely be read and which should be skipped over. I'm just too lazy most of the time to bold, and always mess up the HTML.

I do take a small slight from the last sentence. I don't use insults to argue, but I do think that bolding can be used well to show main points.

EDIT: Did I fix it? Damn webcode...

Edit once more: I need to read before hitting enter. My slight was from being compared with people that argue like you described merely because I capitalized perhaps 3% of my reply. I'm no troll and not one to throw ad hominems and insults around willy-nilly.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

She was in the right espically when she ask for permission to shoot in self defence. I mean she was somewhat clear headed about the situation (she's aware that she may have to shoot them to defend her child) and the law for doing do.

/thread

Though I will state my opnion that I firmly beilve that making rubber/plastic ammunition more available (it's actually HARDER to get then metal bullets/shot in some areas)would help.

So long as he's coming at me with a rubber or plastic knife.

Har har.

At close range, rubber/plastic ammunation is almost as damaging as real ammunation, and it's still like getting punched in the gut further out than that.

You have to remember it's still a dense object flying at you the speed of a car many time over.

Unless the guy is on something. In that case there are a lot of smaller bullets that may not do the trick even.

That's true, there are exceptions with both: people not being stopped by many real bullets, and people dying from rubber ammunition.

 

[ThreeWords]

But that's not what happened. In your scenario, many courts would determine that the victim (the knife-wielder) stepped outside his bounds by pursuing the attack on a defenseless asshole. So, yes, the bully would be able to fend off the victim-knife-guy *IF THE VICTIM LAID THE ATTACK ON FIRST.* That is, the fight must have stopped, followed by the victim openly attacking the wounded kid.

As it happened, though, the victim was completely in his right to defend himself with a flurry of stabs. In that moment, NO PERSON ALIVE would stop to see if the bully was incapacitated after just one stab unless they were seriously freaked out by the idea of stabbing another person. They would stab until the threat is definitely neutralized, which, given the adrenaline, would not be until, well, at least 8 or so stabs.

I'm afraid to say that I won't argue with people who use capslock to reinforce a point. If your argument needs that, then it's too weak to stand up on it's own.

Nothing personal, of course, but it keeps me out of arguments with people who use insults as arguments.

It's no different than using bold, which is an effective way of highlighting which parts should absolutely be read and which should be skipped over. I'm just too lazy most of the time to bold, and always mess up the HTML.

I do take a small slight from the last sentence. I don't use insults to argue, but I do think that bolding can be used well to show main points.

EDIT: Did I fix it? Damn webcode...

Edit once more: I need to read before hitting enter. My slight was from being compared with people that argue like you described merely because I capitalized perhaps 3% of my reply. I'm no troll and not one to throw ad hominems and insults around willy-nilly.

I'm not judging you, I just avoid certain arguments according to certain rules.

As for using capslock/bold/whatever, don't you think that your argument should work due to the words you use, not the shape and colour? Besides, anyone who skips bits of a piece of writing to which they intend to reply is doing it wrong, in my opinion.

[sup]Tl;dr is a crime[/sup]

 

[Cowabungaa]

That's right our criminal system isn't about rehabilitation. It's about punishment. It's about justice. It's about putting them in jail for a long time so they don't repeat their crimes on law abiding citizens again.

No it isn't, you confuse justice with revenge and retribution. Justice is about sense, about logic, about doing what's best for society and protecting the innocent. And you know what's not best for society? Thinking with your heart, with your fists.

The sort of "justice" you seem to like to dispense defies all logic. You take someone who, say, stole a car. You dump him into a hellhole prison that's probably overcrowded, ruled by terrible gangs and violence, where he has to do all kinds of nasty shit to just keep his head afloat, and you let him stay in that environment for three years.

So what'll happen after those two years? You're going to kick an even more fucked up and dangerous person out on the street, probably with all-new contacts in the criminal circuit, few career prospects and probably a big-ass chip on his shoulder, or at least pretty beat up mentally, into normal society.

Is that how you're going to protect the innocent, by putting someone twisted by that fucked up American penal system in their lap? Is that how you're keeping people out of future crimes, by treating them like animals? Is your idea of protecting law-abiding citizens to turn a thief or a pothead into a gangbanger?

I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. Isn't the value and need for a focus on rehabilitation completely obvious? How do you expect someone to re-enter society as a well-adjusted human being that can take part in the daily routine in a healthy way so that they won't bother people again, which is what it's all about, without a penal system based on rehabilitation? How do you expect them to do that when you put them, for years, in an environment like this:

You know what? It work. The US crime rate has been dropping since tougher laws that put criminals in jail. You know that German guy that burned a lot of cars in LA. In Europe he might get one year in jail max and than repeat his crimes. In the USA I would be surprise if he gets less than 40 years. He won't be doing it again because he rotting in jail as it should be.

Really, "in Europe"? Do you have any idea how silly that statement is? It's a continent with fifty countries on it with an almost equal amount of radically different cultures. That statement right there speaks of plenty of ignorance on your part.

You want an example of "European" justice? Take that kid in that video, at the start. You know what we in Holland would do? We would listen to his story, we'd test him on mental issues afterwards and probably ship his ass to a special correctional facility where he would get constant treatment. We would try to help him get rid of whatever lead to him coming at someone with a knife so that he won't do it again.

You know what we would not do? Throw him amidst violent gangs who size him up, force him to choose sides and make him deal with that all the while his mental issues keep on festering. And then let society deal with him.

 

[DragonManRen]

Secondly: I still don't think Britain should relax it's gun control laws to be more like America. When a criminal tries to rob you, let them, it isn't worth you or the robber dying. If they are trying to kill/rape they probably have this planned out and it's unlikely that you could stop them anyway.

Unless, y'know, you have a gun, or a stun gun, or pepper spray, or any serious weapon with which to discourage them. Someone attempting to do violence on you needs to be STOPPED, and it's very simple to equip yourself to do so.

What you're suggesting is to just sit there and let violent crime happen to you, instead of attempting to prevent it. That is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. And no, you can't expect the police to protect you, because they'll never get there in time unless they happen to already be there when you're attacked.

Every country should permit its citizens the tools needed to fend off attackers.

 

[GistoftheFist]

Pardon me Cowabunga, but if you think the American penal system is bad, then you obviously haven't seen prisons in other countries that make prisons in the US look like resorts. I could easily link videos showing off how much worse they are, but if you want to join the slam America bandwagon, go ahead.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Unless, y'know, you have a gun, or a stun gun, or pepper spray, or any serious weapon with which to discourage them.

Who says that they'll be discouraged? It didn't discourage those two men. Why would he be if he has one of the most powerful weapons of all; surprise. Who says that it just wouldn't end up becoming an arms race between criminal and civilian, and who would in the end benefit from such a thing?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against people protecting themselves, I just think that there should go a lot more thought in how one should do that, certainly a lot more than just throwing out all kinds of weapons for everyone. For example, take a gas station cashier who has a shotgun under his counter. A robber is going to surprise him with his own gun, now what's a better cause of action for the bodily safety of that cashier; trying to stop the robbing by reaching for the shotgun, or letting the robber have the contents of the register?

I'm just trying to say that defence doesn't always mean counter-attacking. Because that's what things like guns and tasers are for, not defence, but initiating a counter attack.

Pardon me Cowabunga, but if you think the American penal system is bad, then you obviously haven't seen prisons in other countries that make prisons in the US look like resorts. I could easily link videos showing off how much worse they are, but if you want to join the slam America bandwagon, go ahead.

That, sir, is what we call a faulty argument.

Knowing that, say, Cambodjan prisons are even worse does not make American prisons any better. Cambodja, or any other country with worse prisons, has nothing to do with America and has no place in this discussion. They're completely unrelated, you're not proving anything or changing anything about the condition of America's penal system by saying that there are shittier ones.

 

[chadachada123]

But that's not what happened. In your scenario, many courts would determine that the victim (the knife-wielder) stepped outside his bounds by pursuing the attack on a defenseless asshole. So, yes, the bully would be able to fend off the victim-knife-guy *IF THE VICTIM LAID THE ATTACK ON FIRST.* That is, the fight must have stopped, followed by the victim openly attacking the wounded kid.

As it happened, though, the victim was completely in his right to defend himself with a flurry of stabs. In that moment, NO PERSON ALIVE would stop to see if the bully was incapacitated after just one stab unless they were seriously freaked out by the idea of stabbing another person. They would stab until the threat is definitely neutralized, which, given the adrenaline, would not be until, well, at least 8 or so stabs.

I'm afraid to say that I won't argue with people who use capslock to reinforce a point. If your argument needs that, then it's too weak to stand up on it's own.

Nothing personal, of course, but it keeps me out of arguments with people who use insults as arguments.

It's no different than using bold, which is an effective way of highlighting which parts should absolutely be read and which should be skipped over. I'm just too lazy most of the time to bold, and always mess up the HTML.

I do take a small slight from the last sentence. I don't use insults to argue, but I do think that bolding can be used well to show main points.

EDIT: Did I fix it? Damn webcode...

Edit once more: I need to read before hitting enter. My slight was from being compared with people that argue like you described merely because I capitalized perhaps 3% of my reply. I'm no troll and not one to throw ad hominems and insults around willy-nilly.

I'm not judging you, I just avoid certain arguments according to certain rules.

As for using capslock/bold/whatever, don't you think that your argument should work due to the words you use, not the shape and colour? Besides, anyone who skips bits of a piece of writing to which they intend to reply is doing it wrong, in my opinion.

[sup]Tl;dr is a crime[/sup]

Naw, I forgot to read my own post fully before posting, I realized that my explanation wasn't full enough. I read your post fully.

 

[chadachada123]

Wow, a 12 gauge shotgun? F*ck, Americans are scary. I suppose it's somewhat justified, but I can't help feeling it's a bit excessive. Then again, Americans have that whole blood-lust thing, so this should probably seem tame over there.

You clearly don't live on a farm or in the wilderness, which is what some 70% of America's land is made of. If you live in a city, you know not the dangers of wolves and bears and really horny bucks. A pistol would do shit against a bear; a shotgun is the most appropriate firearm, along with a regular old rifle, for a rural-to-suburban person to have, and is a necessity if you make a living off of your land (where you'll need to shoot the occasional fox/wolf/etc)

Europe doesn't have the same predators as America has, and most people in Europe live in (as far as stereotypes say) cities or at least pretty-damn-urban areas, whereas in the United States, a great deal of our citizenry live in the middle of nowhere, with no neighbors for miles, or at least no neighbors within eyesight.

Guns here aren't weapons, they are tools. They can be used for self-defense, too, but most people that own shotguns aren't owning them for defense as the main reason.

There is no "blood-lust thing" to explain why owning a shotgun is tame. It's purely utilitarian. Pistols are what people buy for self-defense, since it's the most versatile. Also, pistols are what are used for (most?) gang crimes (the majority of our gun crime, done in cities where *gasp* people don't carry guns for self-defense), shotguns are not used for crimes in the majority of cases.

I don't blame you for being ignorant about the United States. It's a HUGE country, made of many distinct states with widely-varying laws. In the cities, guns are treated far differently compared to rural gun ownership, where guns still serve a use as a tool, and I can see how a non-native seeing only news stories and shows that take place in cities could make the mistake.

TL;DR: Owning a shotgun is perfectly tame and is used in the US for plenty of uses. A pistol is arguably better for home defense anyway, and serves few uses outside of defense/offence.

 

[Aprilgold]

The difference between this and those other stories is that here, there are NO other options.

The kid could have stabbed the bully fewer times and the cop could have been more careful, but here, if she hadn't done that, very bad things would have happened.

Same with the kid, I go back to the same thing I said last time. He tried the best he could to AVOID 5 bullies who he believed were going to kill him. Adrenaline kicks in and, the golden rule of weaponry, do not stop what your doing till they stop moving. Since I'm talking about the kid here, a stab is not going to stop you from attacking or even out right tearing it out and using it on the person who brought it. Also, medically, a nip from a knife counts as a stab, just because there were 11 medically correct stab wounds doesn't mean all were penetrating far.

On the Cop One, that kid was very, very stupid.

YES, its justified. No, a shotgun was not excessive and no, she shouldn't have asked for permission. Do I think that gun laws here are a little too free, yes. Do I think that she could have survived any other way, no.

Pardon me Cowabunga, but if you think the American penal system is bad, then you obviously haven't seen prisons in other countries that make prisons in the US look like resorts. I could easily link videos showing off how much worse they are, but if you want to join the slam America bandwagon, go ahead.

Our justice system is very much bullshit. The problem is that its not about making a criminal a better person, its about keeping a prisoner in a hell hole for 3 or so years then releasing them, and sometimes the crime doesn't fit the time and what not. Trial by peers can also be complete and utter bullshit if theres a charismatic lawyer in the room.

Many times with review by peers is that half of them either don't want to be there or are not smart enough to comprehend what is factual fact from myth. While the other half don't give a shit, and maybe a quarter that actually care.

Overall, our justice system is only good at punishment, not at making the punished better people.

 

[GistoftheFist]

Unless, y'know, you have a gun, or a stun gun, or pepper spray, or any serious weapon with which to discourage them.

Who says that they'll be discouraged? It didn't discourage those two men. Why would he be if he has one of the most powerful weapons of all; surprise. Who says that it just wouldn't end up becoming an arms race between criminal and civilian, and who would in the end benefit from such a thing?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against people protecting themselves, I just think that there should go a lot more thought in how one should do that, certainly a lot more than just throwing out all kinds of weapons for everyone. For example, take a gas station cashier who has a shotgun under his counter. A robber is going to surprise him with his own gun, now what's a better cause of action for the bodily safety of that cashier; trying to stop the robbing by reaching for the shotgun, or letting the robber have the contents of the register?

I'm just trying to say that defence doesn't always mean counter-attacking. Because that's what things like guns and tasers are for, not defence, but initiating a counter attack.

Pardon me Cowabunga, but if you think the American penal system is bad, then you obviously haven't seen prisons in other countries that make prisons in the US look like resorts. I could easily link videos showing off how much worse they are, but if you want to join the slam America bandwagon, go ahead.

That, sir, is what we call a faulty argument.

Knowing that, say, Cambodjan prisons are even worse does not make American prisons any better. Cambodja, or any other country with worse prisons, has nothing to do with America and has no place in this discussion. They're completely unrelated, you're not proving anything or changing anything about the condition of America's penal system by saying that there are shittier ones.

The point wasn't to prove anything about America's penal system being better. Has no place in this discussion? Excuse me, I created this thread and this discussion, i'll decide what I want to include in it. I don't know where you get off thinking you can tell people what is allowed to be posted in this thread, because you can't.

 

[Saltyk]

snip

I'm really not making this up.

Heres the wikipedia page for Tony Martin. He actually doesn't live far from me but this case was all over the news for like, 2 years and the trial went on for ages. Basically he's this old farmer, lives in a run down cottage, bunch of teenagers break in, the bloke gets jumpy cause he'd had vandals break in before and blows off with a shotgun, killing one and wounding another. It sparked off a huge nationwide debate on the limits you should be allowed to go to to defend your property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

So I read up on that one. That is not as cut and dry. He used deadly force but he was not in immediate danger and it seems likely that he shot one of them as he was running away as he shot Fred Barras in the back. Though if he had confronted them, he probably would have been. I'm not sure that a manslaughter conviction would have been unjustified. Then again, I also wouldn't say that he should be charged with a crime since these men were illegally in his home and robbing him. Most likely these three men were the ones who robbed him before. Though I wouldn't call them a bunch of teenagers. They were all 16, 29, and 33. And the 16 year old had already been arrested 29 times! How is that even possible? Bunch of idiots seems more accurate.

I'm "on the fence" on this one. I don't think a murder conviction was justified, though. And those men would not have ever been in danger if they weren't breaking the law.

On a side note: Brendon Fearon tried to claim that he had lost wages due to his injury? Wages from what? Theft? Oh, pardon me. I didn't know professional thief was a job or part of the national economy.

 

[brainslurper]

I don't see what the problem is with this. If someone breaks into my house, I am going to warn them, and then use a multitude of large sharp objects in my room on their face. I don't care what the law says, its self defense.

 

[xvbones]

Forum members say a 15 year old stabbing an attacker 11 times is excessive

Because they do not understand how the human psyche functions under that kind of stress.

Sad thing is, understandable =/= legal.

11 stabbings may be the natural reaction, but it doesn't mean it's not wrong

You're right. That poor kid should never have been forced into a situation where he was so completely afraid, he was forced to take a life.

That he was forced into that situation, that he was forced to fear for his life, that was wrong.

Utterly wrong.

That bully's parents, as heartbroken as they feel right now, should also feel pretty fucking terrible that they so completely failed to raise their child, that they somehow managed to miss the part of their child's development where the kid thought it was okay to force someone to feel afraid for their life.

It is too bad that bully is dead.

It is that bully's own fucking fault that he died.