• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lady shoots home invader

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fixed

Yeah you're right, you see someone in your house you don't know what they are doing... Execute them, just incase. 🙄

So what are ok excuses in your opinion for someone to be in your home unwanted?

Most likely they are their for one of 3 things. Robbery, rape, or murder. Sorry im not going to have a chat with them to find out. People know the risks when you break into someones home. He took it and lost. Its as simple as that.
 
I see it as self defense, she had a right to protect herself and her property. In Massachusetts the laws are different, you are better off jumping out of your own window
 
I would criticise anyone who's first reaction is to kill someone "just incase"... It's insanity, and it should be (and is in the UK) criminal insanity

Well when you are dead on the floor maybe your friends and family could say "Gee. Why didnt HAL just shot the guy. He owns a gun" As Spidey said. Better safe (alive) than sorry (dead)
 
I'll add: While it's clearly better to be alive than dead.. It's also true that an 8 x 12 cell isn't much of a life.



I talked about Disparity of Force earlier. And there was sufficient basis in the article that I'm satisfied that was present: i.e. A healthy adult male versus an elderly woman. She has little or no recourse against him on a physical level.



The laws vary widely depending on where you live, but if (you) adhere to the standard "...immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent...", then (you're) on fairly solid ground. Almost no matter where you may be.


Immediate? - You can't shoot him because of what he might do in the future. And you can't shoot him because of something he already did. In this case, I think we can all agree on "Immediate": He was there, in the room (and nearly naked, AAMOF), and he was following her through the house.

Unavoidable? – A bit less clear whether or not she could have gotten away. We don’t know if the intruder was blocking her exit, or if should could have left unseen/unmolested. The article does not tell us whether she could have escaped, despite the man following her. But as a point of law - where she lives she does not have to retreat in her own domicile.

Danger of Death or Bodily Harm? Let’s quote the article:

Maloney told police that a white man burst through a rear door that was unlocked. She told police she had never seen him before, and had no idea why he was there.

Lt. Tom Collins of the Newport Police Department says the man backed Ms. Maloney through the house, and she told the subject several times to leave, but he did not. She was able to get a firearm out of a drawer, fired two shots, hitting the man once. The man has not been identified and was pronounced dead at the scene. Investigators are working to confirm his identity.

A neighbor captured surveillance video where flashes can be seen at the time of the incident. Click the video above to see an excerpt from the surveillance video.

An autopsy of the man is planned, and police hope it may shed some light on the condition the man was in at the time of the shooting.

Lt. Tom Collins of Newport Police told Fox 19, "Obviously she felt that her life was in danger, and she took what action she felt was necessary."

…so we have a nearly naked man, entering an old woman’s house, and following her through the place as she tried to back away. Now, as explained earlier given the ‘Disparity of Force’ concept: The man need not be armed for there to be DoF when he puts himself up against an old woman. And (more to the point), the Police agree.

Innocent? - Yes: She was in her own home, peacefully minding her own business, when a near~naked man burst through the back door and began stalking her through the house.

So I would say the standard is met.

****

Police will talk also about “Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy”. So let’s visit that:

Ability: It’s clear that an old woman stands little chance against a healthy adult male. Check

Opportunity: He’s in the house, where he shouldn’t be. Check

Jeopardy: He’s nearly naked, and stalking her as she’s attempting to back away. Check, and Double Check.
 
Last edited:
We know that in HAL-land, after seeing someone break into his house and threaten him, he would take off his pants and shake his ass at the person invitingly. Whereas in reality, most of us would defend ourselves from an intruder.
 
You had me fooled.

I meant what I said. I didn't lie.

So what are ok excuses in your opinion for someone to be in your home unwanted?

Search warrant.

Most likely they are their for one of 3 things. Robbery, rape, or murder. Sorry im not going to have a chat with them to find out. People know the risks when you break into someones home. He took it and lost. Its as simple as that.

Most likely isn't good enough to kill someone IMO. "Ahh there's a man here! Execute! Execute!"

Well when you are dead on the floor maybe your friends and family could say "Gee. Why didnt HAL just shot the guy. He owns a gun" As Spidey said. Better safe (alive) than sorry (dead)

Is there something you wanted me to reply to here? Better safe (not a killer) than sorry (a killer)
 
We know that in HAL-land, after seeing someone break into his house and threaten him, he would take off his pants and shake his ass at the person invitingly. Whereas in reality, most of us would defend ourselves from an intruder.

We know that in America-land people can't reply to me about guns without saying something retarded.
 

"Access Has Been Blocked To "Dudelol.com/DO NOT HOTLINK IMAGES/Trololololol.jpg as MAN/FunDF-A has been found"


Reported for linking Malware


AND - You obviously have no sensible argument.
 
We know that in America-land people can't reply to me about guns without saying something retarded.

So please tell those of us in America-land what you would do if you hear a noise downstairs in your house, you go down to check on it and you see that someone has broken into your house.
 
So please tell those of us in America-land what you would do if you hear a noise downstairs in your house, you go down to check on it and you see that someone has broken into your house.

Probably hit them with something... Baseball bat etc.

I wouldn't shoot them in the head.
 
Probably hit them with something... Baseball bat etc.

I wouldn't shoot them in the head.

Oops, you either only grazed him on your first swing and now you have a knife in your belly or worse, while you were advancing on him with your bat, he shot you.

It's a shame, if you had just shot him, you would have had very little risk of injuring yourself or worse, getting yourself killed.
 
Oops, you either only grazed him on your first swing and now you have a knife in your belly or worse, while you were advancing on him with your bat, he shot you.

It's a shame, if you had just shot him, you would have had very little risk of injuring yourself or worse, getting yourself killed.

It's best not to argue with Hal9000. He's clueless and is a potential Darwin award winner next time someone breaks into his home (or mom's basement, I forget)
 
Last edited:
I really do not get this absolute Castle Doctrine. If a child jumps over the fence to get an errant ball, the castle doctrine says you can gun them down. Killing children for doing what children do.

I think an investigation is warranted here, if her life was in danger then the shooting was justified.
 
I really do not get this absolute Castle Doctrine. If a child jumps over the fence to get an errant ball, the castle doctrine says you can gun them down. Killing children for doing what children do.

I think an investigation is warranted here, if her life was in danger then the shooting was justified.

The castle doctrine does NOT say you can gun down a child fetching a ball. Nor is it absolute in any way. WTF have you been reading?
 
I really do not get this absolute Castle Doctrine. If a child jumps over the fence to get an errant ball, the castle doctrine says you can gun them down. Killing children for doing what children do.

I think an investigation is warranted here, if her life was in danger then the shooting was justified.

You can't just shoot people. Rather, it says one may defend life/limb on one's own property.


A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine arising from English common law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his "castle"), and any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.


I did an analysis earlier in the thread, and on the face of things, the woman appears justified in this case.
 
Last edited:
HAL just think of it as gambling. When someone breaks into someones home they know the odds/chances are they may be shot and killed for doing so. Yet they still do it anyways. This partiular person gambled and lost. Some people gamble and win (usually when no one is home).

He knew the risk before hand and still chose to undertake his endevour and he died for it. I feel no sympathy for this criminal who B&E'd.
 
I really do not get this absolute Castle Doctrine. If a child jumps over the fence to get an errant ball, the castle doctrine says you can gun them down. Killing children for doing what children do.

I think an investigation is warranted here, if her life was in danger then the shooting was justified.

Um that is not at all what Castle Doctrine is. That would be cold blooded murder to shot a kid who poses no threat or is even threatening you in anyway shape or form just grabbing his ball.
 
The castle doctrine does NOT say you can gun down a child fetching a ball. Nor is it absolute in any way. WTF have you been reading?

Readying what people on here say, it seems you can shot anyone who trespasses on your property. A child getting an errant ball in your backyard is trespassing.
 
Back
Top