Elderly Woman Shoots And Kills Intruder

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Tab
Tallbill, bamacre and PrinceofWands...

I don't have a problem with responsible firearm ownership, I think we can all agree that this story is a example of proper firearm usage.

I did not say or imply this is a case of "execessive force", as I mentioned before civillians don't have the legitmacy to be prosecuter, judge, jury and executioner.

As chcarnage pointed out, Swizterland laws don't give you free reign to kill anyone whom breaks into your home, this is the same as many united states laws - if no life threatening danger exsists, you're not allowed to fire your weapon.

What is the point of your post? To point out that the woman could have been charged if she lived someplace else?

You don't have free reign to kill anyone who breaks into your home.

Actually, yes I do. Here I have the right to use any force neccessary to protect a life, OR to prevent a felony in my presence. Guess what robbery is? Furthermore because she's been assaulted during a home robbery in the past, she has reason to believe it could/would happen again. That fulfills the requirement to prove that she had reason to believe her safety was threatened, which is the usual requirement to claim self-defense.

The basic premise of proving self-defense to a jury is that you need to demonstrate to them that; knowing what you know (in other words given your personal experiences and beliefs/mindset) would a reasonable person think they were in danger. Easy win.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Tab
Tallbill, bamacre and PrinceofWands...

I don't have a problem with responsible firearm ownership, I think we can all agree that this story is a example of proper firearm usage.

I did not say or imply this is a case of "execessive force", as I mentioned before civillians don't have the legitmacy to be prosecuter, judge, jury and executioner.

As chcarnage pointed out, Swizterland laws don't give you free reign to kill anyone whom breaks into your home, this is the same as many united states laws - if no life threatening danger exsists, you're not allowed to fire your weapon.

The way I see it, someone is breaking into your house. How do you know if they are coming to rob you, or rape you and then kill you? If they have so little respect for the law as to break into your house, I'm not going to make the assumption that there just after my property, I'm going to assume the worst case scenario and act accordingly.

You don't know what they're going to do, that's the point! You can't just grab your pistol and shoot someone just because they're in your house.

Home invasion is a different beast than breaking and entering. Middle of the night, damn right I am going to fire first. Intention of the attacker or intruder doesn't matter when there is a perception of mortal danger. You are in the wrong.

 

[biff 24 2000]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
That's awesome

 

[Nate7out]

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

A blog that lists links to articles of self defense uses of guns.

In this specific case, it is very sad the woman had to shoot, but I think she acted within the law. I also have no moral qualms with what she did. I think someone entering your house by force(or attempting to) should always justify deadly force in the eyes of the law. The discretion is left to the homeowner but the law should be on their side. However, just because you are not charged with a crime when you shoot an intruder doesn't mean it will be easy to deal with after the fact.

 

[Isla]

I think it was fully justifiable. I stand in the middle regarding gun laws... I think that there should be regulations regarding them... but I am in no way 'anti-gun".

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Tab
You don't have free reign to kill anyone who breaks into your home.

Yes you most certainly do if you live in a state like Texas that understands reality. If you break into my house you are leaving only one way....in a body bag, that is unless I am not home...but then my large dogs would keep out the typical burglar in that case.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Tab
So, what do the anti-gun nuts have to say about this?

Well, for one, this is one case in a million. Secondly, I don't think robbery should be punishable by death.

Well, under "that logic" every case, no matter the outcome, is just "one case in a million"

His death wasn't "punishment" it was an "occupatuional hazard". An outcome he "earned". What's that old cliche- You reap what you sow.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Tab
So, what do the anti-gun nuts have to say about this?

Secondly, I don't think robbery should be punishable by death.

What in the hell else is a 87 year old grandmother going to do against a full grown man breaking into her home? Make him milk and cookies? :roll:

Make milk?

NO PICS PLEASE!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Aelius
I gave examples like this to a few people I work with when I see it in the news. Some of the answers I get astounds me.

"Would you use a gun to protect yourself if someone broke into your home?"

Answer: "no"

"Would you use a weapon of some kind like a knife or baseball bat or something?"

Answer: "no"

"ok what if there was 2 of them and one had a gun and the other a knife yet you had the jump on them from behind, would you..."

Cuts me off "NO!"

"Why?"

Answer: "Because I don't think anyone has the right to take someone elses life, regardless of anything else."


^Nice guy but prime candidate for the local obituary.

Ask a coworker with children the same question. While you are free to defend yourself or not defend yourself as you see fit, I would argue that you have the responsibility to defend your family. I would personally never own a gun, but if someone were to break into my home and I thought they might hurt my kids, they would get the beating of a lifetime using whatever means were necessary. Even if I had a gun, I would probably use it to maim rather than to kill, but I can't blame someone that does use it to kill under such circumstances.

 

[DVK916]

This woman used a gun the right way. Way to go granny. I hate nothing more than those who prey on the elderly. Sick bastards deserve death.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aelius
I gave examples like this to a few people I work with when I see it in the news. Some of the answers I get astounds me.

"Would you use a gun to protect yourself if someone broke into your home?"

Answer: "no"

"Would you use a weapon of some kind like a knife or baseball bat or something?"

Answer: "no"

"ok what if there was 2 of them and one had a gun and the other a knife yet you had the jump on them from behind, would you..."

Cuts me off "NO!"

"Why?"

Answer: "Because I don't think anyone has the right to take someone elses life, regardless of anything else."


^Nice guy but prime candidate for the local obituary.

Even if I had a gun, I would probably use it to maim rather than to kill,

I'm just curious about something. You're a long time poster, so by now you must have seen that absolutely all evidence, training, experience, etc has shown that there is only one correct way to use a gun - aim center of mass and fire until they stop moving. IF every single reputable source in the free world, every military person, every law enforcement officer, every statistician, everyone who has studied firearms, history, crime, etc...if the ALL say the same thing (that you must only use a gun to fire center of mass until they're dead)...then how can you still make statements like you just did?

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, I'm curious to understand how people can fail to get what is honestly an absolute total truth/fact. Is there some kind of brain chemistry disorder that causes people to be like this, or is it truly ego/arrogance, or what exactly?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aelius
I gave examples like this to a few people I work with when I see it in the news. Some of the answers I get astounds me.

"Would you use a gun to protect yourself if someone broke into your home?"

Answer: "no"

"Would you use a weapon of some kind like a knife or baseball bat or something?"

Answer: "no"

"ok what if there was 2 of them and one had a gun and the other a knife yet you had the jump on them from behind, would you..."

Cuts me off "NO!"

"Why?"

Answer: "Because I don't think anyone has the right to take someone elses life, regardless of anything else."


^Nice guy but prime candidate for the local obituary.

Even if I had a gun, I would probably use it to maim rather than to kill,

I'm just curious about something. You're a long time poster, so by now you must have seen that absolutely all evidence, training, experience, etc has shown that there is only one correct way to use a gun - aim center of mass and fire until they stop moving. IF every single reputable source in the free world, every military person, every law enforcement officer, every statistician, everyone who has studied firearms, history, crime, etc...if the ALL say the same thing (that you must only use a gun to fire center of mass until they're dead)...then how can you still make statements like you just did?

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything,

First you say this

I'm curious to understand how people can fail to get what is honestly an absolute total truth/fact.


Is there some kind of brain chemistry disorder that causes people to be like this, or is it truly ego/arrogance, or what exactly?

Than that...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aelius
I gave examples like this to a few people I work with when I see it in the news. Some of the answers I get astounds me.

"Would you use a gun to protect yourself if someone broke into your home?"

Answer: "no"

"Would you use a weapon of some kind like a knife or baseball bat or something?"

Answer: "no"

"ok what if there was 2 of them and one had a gun and the other a knife yet you had the jump on them from behind, would you..."

Cuts me off "NO!"

"Why?"

Answer: "Because I don't think anyone has the right to take someone elses life, regardless of anything else."


^Nice guy but prime candidate for the local obituary.

Even if I had a gun, I would probably use it to maim rather than to kill,

I'm just curious about something. You're a long time poster, so by now you must have seen that absolutely all evidence, training, experience, etc has shown that there is only one correct way to use a gun - aim center of mass and fire until they stop moving. IF every single reputable source in the free world, every military person, every law enforcement officer, every statistician, everyone who has studied firearms, history, crime, etc...if the ALL say the same thing (that you must only use a gun to fire center of mass until they're dead)...then how can you still make statements like you just did?

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything,

First you say this

I'm curious to understand how people can fail to get what is honestly an absolute total truth/fact.


Is there some kind of brain chemistry disorder that causes people to be like this, or is it truly ego/arrogance, or what exactly?

Than that...

Ok first thing you need to do.

As for my post, I was just being sarcastic with the brain chemistry thing, I truly am curious how people continue to say those things. Is the media driven hold on reason so absolute that actual knowledge can no longer penetrate? Seriously, there has to be some common thread reason because a LOT of people seem to suffer from this disorder, and it's really quite a dangerous thing.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Tab
So, what do the anti-gun nuts have to say about this?

Well, for one, this is one case in a million. Secondly, I don't think robbery should be punishable by death.

Well, under "that logic" every case, no matter the outcome, is just "one case in a million"

His death wasn't "punishment" it was an "occupatuional hazard". An outcome he "earned". What's that old cliche- You reap what you sow.

I agree with you but you have to be a responsible gun owner. Another old cliche- live by the sword, die by the sword. You have to make sure that no one is going to take your guns, and go shoot you or other people with them.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aelius
I gave examples like this to a few people I work with when I see it in the news. Some of the answers I get astounds me.

"Would you use a gun to protect yourself if someone broke into your home?"

Answer: "no"

"Would you use a weapon of some kind like a knife or baseball bat or something?"

Answer: "no"

"ok what if there was 2 of them and one had a gun and the other a knife yet you had the jump on them from behind, would you..."

Cuts me off "NO!"

"Why?"

Answer: "Because I don't think anyone has the right to take someone elses life, regardless of anything else."


^Nice guy but prime candidate for the local obituary.

Even if I had a gun, I would probably use it to maim rather than to kill,

I'm just curious about something. You're a long time poster, so by now you must have seen that absolutely all evidence, training, experience, etc has shown that there is only one correct way to use a gun - aim center of mass and fire until they stop moving. IF every single reputable source in the free world, every military person, every law enforcement officer, every statistician, everyone who has studied firearms, history, crime, etc...if the ALL say the same thing (that you must only use a gun to fire center of mass until they're dead)...then how can you still make statements like you just did?

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything,

First you say this

I'm curious to understand how people can fail to get what is honestly an absolute total truth/fact.


Is there some kind of brain chemistry disorder that causes people to be like this, or is it truly ego/arrogance, or what exactly?

Than that...

Ok first thing you need to do.

As for my post, I was just being sarcastic with the brain chemistry thing, I truly am curious how people continue to say those things. Is the media driven hold on reason so absolute that actual knowledge can no longer penetrate? Seriously, there has to be some common thread reason because a LOT of people seem to suffer from this disorder, and it's really quite a dangerous thing.

I will pass on teh grammer lesons

As for the people believing what they want, it is the same as you believing what you want.

 

[lyssword]

Yep you must shoot 3 times in center to make sure they are DEAD yes those are good statistics. But what about maiming the person? I have personally not been shot ever, but I imagine it would hurt like hell and wouldn't be able to do much physically.. but ok I guess guns are only made for killing..

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Agrooreo

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: Tab
So, what do the anti-gun nuts have to say about this?

Well, for one, this is one case in a million. Secondly, I don't think robbery should be punishable by death.

You think someone who breaks into someone's house who has a history of crime is just going to leave grandma alone? Robbery shouldn't be punishable by death, but I do have a right to defend my property and myself.

It is possible that grandma did use execessive force... but that's a another story...

Meh, 3 shots is not excessive force to someone who just entered your home forcibly and cut the phone lines, she should have finished off the mag.

Completely agree with you there!!!

Go Grandma!!! You go girl. I think that for anybody, who cut phone lines on an old woman who had already been robbed and beaten, should be shot way more than 3 times. Killing someone who invades your home with wrong intentions, however bad or not so bad (oh, hello. just sit there and we won't harm you- we'll just steal stuff), IS punishable by death.

The lesson to learn here is to never rob someone or commit any crimes at all against a person or their property. Now, is that so bad? Let me think... Well, if every one could learn that lesson, maybe there would not be any more crime. Not so bad after all.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: lyssword
Yep you must shoot 3 times in center to make sure they are DEAD yes those are good statistics. But what about maiming the person? I have personally not been shot ever, but I imagine it would hurt like hell and wouldn't be able to do much physically.. but ok I guess guns are only made for killing..

Actually someone shot in the arm or leg is still very effective at causing harm to others. If the intruder had a gun it wouldn't be hard to pull it out and shoot the old woman even if he was maimed.

 

[piasabird]

I live near St Louis, MO, and I have heard about a lot of people who have died because they were old and people broke into their home. All of these people were someone's mom or someone's grandma. I will support anyone that shoots an intruder trying to break into their house.

 

[Jediab]

I dont know if this has been said here yet, but one of the main reasons for a person to shoot and kill is the fact that the intruder cant sue you if dead.

Sad and sickening as it sounds, but it has happened.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'm just curious about something. You're a long time poster, so by now you must have seen that absolutely all evidence, training, experience, etc has shown that there is only one correct way to use a gun - aim center of mass and fire until they stop moving. IF every single reputable source in the free world, every military person, every law enforcement officer, every statistician, everyone who has studied firearms, history, crime, etc...if the ALL say the same thing (that you must only use a gun to fire center of mass until they're dead)...then how can you still make statements like you just did?

Only use a gun to shoot someone until they're dead? That's not what I've read from law enforcement policies. There are places you can shoot people that they will not be able to shoot back, yet they'll live. For example, if I shoot someone in the shoulder with a .44, they're going to spin and fall from the momentum of the impact. If they decide to try to shoot me, I can shoot them again in their gun-wielding arm. Point is, if you can aim and control your nerves, you can shoot people without killing them and keep yourself safe. If you can demonstrate your massive consensual literature search that you claim above, I might change my mind. As yet, I haven't really read any such material, as I don't tend to read the gun threads as my mind is pretty set on the matter. I ventured into this one because I saw the story on the news and wanted to see what people had to say about it.

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, I'm curious to understand how people can fail to get what is honestly an absolute total truth/fact. Is there some kind of brain chemistry disorder that causes people to be like this, or is it truly ego/arrogance, or what exactly?

Maybe it's because I'm a big guy and know how to handle myself. Maybe it is arrogance. Maybe I would just have a hard time shooting someone. I've shot plenty of guns before and am actually a pretty good shot for how little I've done it (according to the ROTC guys that hold the annual gun-shooting fund-raiser anyway ), which may also play a role in my 'chemically imbalanced' position.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Tab
Tallbill, bamacre and PrinceofWands...

I don't have a problem with responsible firearm ownership, I think we can all agree that this story is a example of proper firearm usage.

I did not say or imply this is a case of "execessive force", as I mentioned before civillians don't have the legitmacy to be prosecuter, judge, jury and executioner.

As chcarnage pointed out, Swizterland laws don't give you free reign to kill anyone whom breaks into your home, this is the same as many united states laws - if no life threatening danger exsists, you're not allowed to fire your weapon.

What is the point of your post? To point out that the woman could have been charged if she lived someplace else?

You don't have free reign to kill anyone who breaks into your home.

There is not a single jury in the world that'll convict you for defending your home.

If someone enters that front door in the middle of the night, I don't give a flying FRAK what the laws are, he's gonna get a .38 dead center three times. Simple as that. And I know that no jury will convict me if it goes that far.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: lyssword
Yep you must shoot 3 times in center to make sure they are DEAD yes those are good statistics. But what about maiming the person? I have personally not been shot ever, but I imagine it would hurt like hell and wouldn't be able to do much physically.. but ok I guess guns are only made for killing..

Actually someone shot in the arm or leg is still very effective at causing harm to others. If the intruder had a gun it wouldn't be hard to pull it out and shoot the old woman even if he was maimed.

The only thing wrong is that you assume he'll give up after getting maimed.

There are literally hundreds of reports of police officers and civilians dying using this thought process. Criminals have been shot 4-6 times in the chest and still manage to grab the officer's gun and shoot them back.

If this guy was hopped up on drugs, he probably won't even feel it until the morning or when the high gets off. The only way to ensure your safety and the safety of your family is to put one right through his heart and one right through his brain. Anything less is a compromise on your life.

 

[lyssword]

I agree the homeowner has the right to shoot intruder and protect their home. I think in a FEW cases death is preventable but w/e its just my opinion. I in no way support any burglars, specially of elder people, but some deaths could hav been preventable. But yes I guess it is the risk burglars take on their "job" lol, that would teach em..

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aelius
I gave examples like this to a few people I work with when I see it in the news. Some of the answers I get astounds me.

"Would you use a gun to protect yourself if someone broke into your home?"

Answer: "no"

"Would you use a weapon of some kind like a knife or baseball bat or something?"

Answer: "no"

"ok what if there was 2 of them and one had a gun and the other a knife yet you had the jump on them from behind, would you..."

Cuts me off "NO!"

"Why?"

Answer: "Because I don't think anyone has the right to take someone elses life, regardless of anything else."


^Nice guy but prime candidate for the local obituary.

Even if I had a gun, I would probably use it to maim rather than to kill,

I'm just curious about something. You're a long time poster, so by now you must have seen that absolutely all evidence, training, experience, etc has shown that there is only one correct way to use a gun - aim center of mass and fire until they stop moving. IF every single reputable source in the free world, every military person, every law enforcement officer, every statistician, everyone who has studied firearms, history, crime, etc...if the ALL say the same thing (that you must only use a gun to fire center of mass until they're dead)...then how can you still make statements like you just did?

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything,

First you say this

I'm curious to understand how people can fail to get what is honestly an absolute total truth/fact.


Is there some kind of brain chemistry disorder that causes people to be like this, or is it truly ego/arrogance, or what exactly?

Than that...

Ok first thing you need to do.

As for my post, I was just being sarcastic with the brain chemistry thing, I truly am curious how people continue to say those things. Is the media driven hold on reason so absolute that actual knowledge can no longer penetrate? Seriously, there has to be some common thread reason because a LOT of people seem to suffer from this disorder, and it's really quite a dangerous thing.

I will pass on teh grammer lesons

As for the people believing what they want, it is the same as you believing what you want.

Ok, but I try to keep an open mind. I've frequently changed my position on issues when presented irefutable evidence. That's what I see lacking here...100% total agreement of everyone related to the field, but no one listens.