Mother holds off 3 home invaders with carbine

[fskimospy]

And what if they had saw their mother shot to death because she didnt have a gun? Or even themselves?

Much better for the one commiting the crime to be the dead one

Who are you trying to argue with?

 

[davmat787]

I'm glad for her, but the lack of deaths is not a negative.

Hypothetical question for you: Let's pretend they go to trial for this, but due to a technicality the trial goes nowhere and they are released.

Fast forward six months later, and they decide to break in to another house. But this time, the burglary goes worse for them. One of the three is high on meth, and accidently shoots the mother who is trying to protect the children. He freaks out even more, and shoots the children because he can't have witnesses.

Do you still see the deaths as a negative in the first break in?

I realize hindsight is 20/20 and all that, and if she had them under control at gunpoint she should not have shot them, and she did not. Not a fair question, but what if they do end up murdering a family in the future?

 

[TerryMathews]

Hypothetical question for you: Let's pretend they go to trial for this, but due to a technicality the trial goes nowhere and they are released.

Fast forward six months later, and they decide to break in to another house. But this time, the burglary goes worse for them. One of the three is high on meth, and accidently shoots the mother who is trying to protect the children. He freaks out even more, and shoots the children because he can't have witnesses.

Do you still see the deaths as a negative in the first break in?

I realize hindsight is 20/20 and all that, and if she had them under control at gunpoint she should not have shot them, and she did not. Not a fair question, but what if they do end up murdering a family in the future?

There's no evidence that their crimes would escalate over time.

...

...

Damnit, i couldn't keep a straight face. :sly:

 

[soulcougher73]

Who are you trying to argue with?

My post was very easy to understand. You'd rather take the chance the criminals wouldn't hurt the family and just see how it played out without a gun. Id rather her protect her family from criminals. If one or all 3 had died i wouldn't have any sympathy for them. They brought the situation upon themselves.

 

[michal1980]

Its called empathy and being a decent person. Which is something a person like you would have trouble with. Sorry you have a mental disorder.

ok moonbeam.

 

[mect]

My post was very easy to understand. You'd rather take the chance the criminals wouldn't hurt the family and just see how it played out without a gun. Id rather her protect her family from criminals. If one or all 3 had died i wouldn't have any sympathy for them. They brought the situation upon themselves.

He never said what you are claiming he said. He clearly stated that the woman was in the right to shoot these guys, whether they had died or not. He never said she shouldn't have had a gun. He is simply stating that it shouldn't be viewed as bad that they didn't die.

 

[blankslate]

what kind of carbine?

I didn't see it in the article. and don't have the speeds at this location to watch the video.

 

[fskimospy]

My post was very easy to understand. You'd rather take the chance the criminals wouldn't hurt the family and just see how it played out without a gun. Id rather her protect her family from criminals. If one or all 3 had died i wouldn't have any sympathy for them. They brought the situation upon themselves.

Can you please quote where in any of my posts I said that? I would start with my very first one in this thread and go from there.

Eye roll indeed.

 

[Bateluer]

what kind of carbine?

I didn't see it in the article. and don't have the speeds at this location to watch the video.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...hey-say-no-you-dont-she-changes-their-minds/#

After seeing the video where one of them picks up the pistol he drops and tries to go back it, its too bad she didn't hit any of these jackasses.

 

[Svnla]

Look like it was a Hi-point carbine?

 

[blankslate]

Thanks for the info.

I think that if she hit one or all of them it would have been justifiable.

 

[Jaskalas]

Its called empathy and being a decent person. Which is something a person like you would have trouble with. Sorry you have a mental disorder.

I have empathy for the innocent, to protect them. Home invaders need to die.

 

[highland145]

Its called empathy and being a decent person. Which is something a person like you would have trouble with. Sorry you have a mental disorder.

No shit. Why don't you have empathy for the future victims? Bet if one of your loved ones was next you'd be singing a different tune....

 

[fskimospy]

Hypothetical question for you: Let's pretend they go to trial for this, but due to a technicality the trial goes nowhere and they are released.

Fast forward six months later, and they decide to break in to another house. But this time, the burglary goes worse for them. One of the three is high on meth, and accidently shoots the mother who is trying to protect the children. He freaks out even more, and shoots the children because he can't have witnesses.

Do you still see the deaths as a negative in the first break in?

I realize hindsight is 20/20 and all that, and if she had them under control at gunpoint she should not have shot them, and she did not. Not a fair question, but what if they do end up murdering a family in the future?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc5Hy_nMHSk

 

[fskimospy]

No shit. Why don't you have empathy for the future victims? Bet if one of your loved ones was next you'd be singing a different tune....

So you support the mandatory death penalty for all home invaders? If not, why don't you have empathy for the future victims?

 

[michal1980]

Look like it was a Hi-point carbine?

assault rifle. definitely. we should lock her up.

 

[Bateluer]

So you support the mandatory death penalty for all home invaders? If not, why don't you have empathy for the future victims?

Home invaders, armed with a pistol? Are you an idiot? These criminals could have killed a mother and 2 children for some electronics and some jewelry. Sympathize with the victim, the mother and children, not the punks who broken into her house and tried to shoot her.

 

[highland145]

So you support the mandatory death penalty for all home invaders? If not, why don't you have empathy for the future victims?

Yes, at the hands of the victims, during the crime. And maybe after like the case of the intruder on the nanny cam where he beat the hell out of the woman.

Would you would let them in, load your valuables in their car, hold down your loved ones for them? Or would you blow their head off? Who is your empathy for?

 

[MrPickins]

Home invaders, armed with a pistol? Are you an idiot? These criminals could have killed a mother and 2 children for some electronics and some jewelry. Sympathize with the victim, the mother and children, not the punks who broken into her house and tried to shoot her.

Sympathizing with the family doesn't mean being disappointed she didn't kill them.

 

[fskimospy]

Home invaders, armed with a pistol? Are you an idiot? These criminals could have killed a mother and 2 children for some electronics and some jewelry. Sympathize with the victim, the mother and children, not the punks who broken into her house and tried to shoot her.

Who are you trying to argue with?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, at the hands of the victims, during the crime. And maybe after like the case of the intruder on the nanny cam where he beat the hell out of the woman.

Would you would let them in, load your valuables in their car, hold down your loved ones for them? Or would you blow their head off? Who is your empathy for?

Same question to you, who are you trying to argue with? Have you guys even read the thread?

Your argument was that they would go on to commit future crimes, so why only the death penalty during the act? Why not after?

 

[highland145]

Same question to you, who are you trying to argue with? Have you guys even read the thread?

Your argument was that they would go on to commit future crimes, so why only the death penalty during the act? Why not after?

Why are you avoiding the hard question? Empathy for the victims/future victims.

Would you protect your family or not?

 

[Incorruptible]

The mother did what was necessary to defend herself. It's shameful but not surprising that leftists defend the criminals. What happens if these guys go to another house and KILL someone or go back for revenge?

 

[fskimospy]

Why are you avoiding the hard question? Empathy for the victims/future victims.

Would you protect your family or not?

How is that a hard question? The real question is why you are even asking it, other than because you didn't bother to read the thread. My very first post said "good for her". The entire rest of the time has been about creepy people salivating over the prospect of a mom shooting multiple people to death in front of her young children.

Christ, people.

 

[MrPickins]

The mother did what was necessary to defend herself. It's shameful but not surprising that leftists defend the criminals. What happens if these guys go to another house and KILL someone or go back for revenge?

Who is defending criminals in this thread?

I want direct quotes.