Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Would you shoot if you were her

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post


    ok here is the news story, she was not armed, but you usualy are... I know most people at first will say yes because it was kidnapping, but if you found this what might you do?

    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3728039

    Mother rescues children from suspected kidnapper
    July 10th, 2008 @ 5:56pm
    Team coverage
    A South Salt Lake man is in jail accused of kidnapping two small children from their home. The mother of one of the children found them in the man's house.
    The mother and the suspect are neighbors, so she didn't mind when he came over last week. The woman, who didn't want to be identified, says she won't be so trusting anymore.
    "I think it may have been a 10-minute time frame that he had had them," the mother said.
    Earlier that day, neighbor David Bell had been at her house for the family's Fourth of July party. "He kind of just came over and just kind of wanted to hang out. We didn't have a problem with that. He seemed pretty nice," the mother said.

    Court documents say in the early morning hours, as the children slept, Bell took the woman's 2-year-old daughter and 4-year-old nephew. The woman says her 4-year-old daughter saw it happen and, thinking it was a bad dream, began to cry. That alerted her mother.
    "I noticed my 2-year-old missing, so I searched the whole house. I guess by instinct, I just went directly over to the neighbor's house and found the children and him and his partner in the bedroom," the mother said.
    She says the children were clothed but holding hands and crying. She doesn't like to think about what could have happened. "When I was walking up the stairs to his bedroom, I could hear him say things to the kids like, 'You're so beautiful. I just want to make sure you're OK. You're so beautiful.' That, to me, is just creepy," she said.

    Bell got into a scuffle with the victim's family before the cops arrived. He's now in jail, charged with kidnapping. The other man in his home was not charged.
    "I hope he rots. I don't see any reason why he would want to even take someone's children out of their home unless they were planning to do something that's not right," the mother said.
    Court documents say Bell admitted to taking the children into his house, but we don't know his motive.
    We also talked woman whose nephew witnessed what happened. He claims the children knocked on Bell's door looking for their mother. He says Bell took them in to help them, and then the father of the 4-year-old boy got into a fight with Bell. Police pursued assault charges against him.



    So.... in most/some states you can use deadly force against kidnapping.

    this is what I would have done:

    If I were that woman, keep in mind I carry my gun almost everywhere I go, I would have the right to use my firearm in the situation because he kidnapped my kid/s. I would probably not shoot him in the current situationthe woman found the kidsbut definitely draw on him. If the situation escalated more than what the woman found I would say there would be a 99.9% chance I would shoot.

    It looks as if he got the crap beat out of him though :celebrate, and if didnt think I should use a firearm, I would probably kick his butt too.

    EDIT: Please refraim from making comments about what you personaly think the criminal is or "the empty my mag into him and reload" comment. Its about whats happening and what the laws allow you to do. Thanks

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah, , USA
    Posts
    472

    Post imported post

    You can only use your firearm to stop the felony. Once it's done, you can't use it.

    In this case, had the mother watched him break in and attempt to kidnap the kids, she could use it. However, she couldn't go into HIS house and light him up for taking her kids. She could probably demand he return them (perhaps even at gunpoint without legal action), but she can't kill him for something he's already done.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure the thread-title question serves a purpose.

    Its not whether I or anyone else would shoot. Its whether its tactically necessary, and whether its legal according to the intricacies of self-defense law weighed against the circumstances presented.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah, , USA
    Posts
    472

    Post imported post

    I love how one guy witnessed it and said that Bell took the kids inside to help find their mother... uh... ok.

    Why would she be at HIS house? and if she WERE, wouldn't HE know about it?

    If two kids showed up at my door asking to help locate their mother, I think the first thing I would say is, "OK, where do you live?" For some reason taking the kids to my bedroom and telling them how pretty they are wouldn't even be a plausible option... ew... this guy is sick.

    LOL, when I first saw the picture (spaced the name to the right for some reason), I thought it was the mother, "Man, who beat her up?"

    Looks like Mr. Bell needs a haircut...

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I'm not sure the thread-title question serves a purpose.

    Its not whether I or anyone else would shoot. Its whether its tactically necessary, and whether its legal according to the intricacies of self-defense law weighed against the circumstances presented.
    oh good grief.... lol

    I just wanted some other peoples thoughts of what they would do..

    well thats what I ment, but could not fit all that in the heading.

    I know we all read laws the way the words say them, but IANAL so.... I dont know or have the practice of writing in that manner.

    So what Citizen said: "Its whether its tactically necessary, and whether its legal according to the intricacies of self-defense law weighed against the circumstances presented. "


    So.... Citizen what would you have done then???

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    GeneticsDave wrote:
    You can only use your firearm to stop the felony. Once it's done, you can't use it.
    Thanks for the clarification.... I think thats why I would have not shot at first, but have it drawn with what what was being heard from behind the door assuming the worst which would be another crime in the act

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    GeneticsDave wrote:
    SNIP She could probably demand he return them (perhaps even at gunpoint without legal action), but she can't kill him for something he's already done.
    I'm curious on this point. I have not come across something like this before. Would she not be able to brandish while telling the kids,"Mommys here, kids. Goto the bottom of the stairsand wait for me."

    And if the men then did anything at all to restrain the children or prevent their leaving--i.e. continue the kidnapping or false imprisonment--then shoot. Meaning the crime is on-going. If the men prevent the children leaving, can she legally shoot to end the crime and get the kids away?

    Also, given the creepy quote, wouldn't it be almost guaranteed to be a planned sex crime? In that it could be sodomy, which has many times been followed by murder, wouldthese additional reasonable suspicions increase her legal justification to shoot if the men prevented the children leaving? Or even moved to take the kids as hostages?

    Or is it legallyimmaterial because kidnapping is perhaps presumed toalways have theserious risk of grave bodily injury or death?

    The more I think about it, the more I suspect that if the men movedtowards the kids at all, she'd belegally justified to shoot. I just don't know that she would belegally justified.Jury considerations aside.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    thanks for your insight

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    the more I think my self.... if it were my kid

    I dont know if I would shoot, Imay be sofurious Imight wantto beat the crap out of him instead because if I were to shoot it may end with death.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    usSiR wrote:
    thanks for your insight

    You're welcome. Really all I try to do is fit the circumstances into the framework of the law. Or rather what I know of the framework.

    A bird fell from the sky. OK, some people look for the philosophical importwith regard to the Grand Design. Some peoplefeel sorry for the bird. Some people feel happy for the cat. Some people want a cool feather for their hat.

    I justask, "What dotactics and law have to say about this," confident that, at least as regards self-defense, the law has probably alreadyexamined enough of the circumstancesin the last 600 yearsto give me aworkableanswer. Might as well use all that wisdom and figure-out developed over the centuries.

    Check your PMs.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    usSiR wrote:
    GeneticsDave wrote:
    You can only use your firearm to stop the felony. Once it's done, you can't use it.
    Thanks for the clarification.... I think thats why I would have not shot at first, but have it drawn with what what was being heard from behind the door assuming the worst which would be another crime in the act
    I would have entered the residence with a concealed firearm, assessed the situation and requested the immediate return of the kids. Depending on how the situation played out from that point would determine everything. If the guy(s) let the kids go, I would immediately leave the premises with the kidsand call the cops.

    If they don't let the kids go, stay in the room and whip out the cell phone and call the cops. If any of them advance toward me, I reveal my firearm anddraw down withit while yelling "STOP". If they continue to advance, then force is authroized and the BG goes down with a 45 +P hollowpoint expanded somewhere inside his/her torso.

    Handling it this way covers your tushy in several ways. 1. You did not enter another person's residence with a visible firearm. This gives the BG no suspicion of intent to use force by the mere presence of the gun. 2. By asking for the kids back without the display of force, you can thereby determine intent. When the BG doesn't let the kids go, It's felony kidnapping, and a felony is in progress. If you had your gun out tobegin with, the BG might argue that he was protecting the kids from you, which is BS. 3. By threatening to call the police, you are giving the BG the final chance to relent and end the situation. At this point, you should be able to fully determine, without any doubt, depending on the BGs reaction, whether deadly force is needed to end the situation. ie. the BG moves toward you to stop you or threatens the well being of any of the children.

    Just my thoughts.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    The way I see it, is as long as the kidnapper has the children he is in the act of kidnapping... The act of kidnapping isn't over until the kids are safely back in the custody of parents/police... If I'm sitting outside the room, and I hear that he is in there, and not letting them leave, that's still kidnapping, and I'm justified if I feel it's necessary to shoot to stop the kidnapping.
    If I burst into the room with my gun drawn, and the guy does anything but put his hands up or somehow show submission, I'm going to use whatever force necessary to get my kids out of the room as fast as possible.


  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    Kevin-

    that is some very good points.

    this is some stuff I was looking for, I certainly dont think of it all

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    SNIP I would have entered the residence with a concealed firearm,
    Good point. At the time you enter the home, you may noteven totally know yet if the kids are there, just going on an instinct.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    SNIP I would have entered the residence with a concealed firearm,
    Good point. At the time you enter the home, you may noteven totally know yet if the kids are there, just going on an instinct.
    The woman said on the TV interview that she heard the kids from outside the house, either the kids were loud or a window was open.

    Really its too bad we have to think thing through like this because if you make the smallest unintentional mistake now makesyou the criminal.

    One of us might end up in some kind of situation, I really hope not, and can learn from other situations and learn the best possible way to analyze and proceed and hopefully not with deadly force

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah, , USA
    Posts
    472

    Post imported post

    I agree with Kevin.

    Jared, I think you would have a hard time in court if you went into the house and popped two into this guy, even if he had kidnapped your children. Granted you might be within the law, but I think too many would argue that what you did wasn't necessary given the circumstances. I think the only way that I could see using the sidearm is if you were preventing him from taking the kids in the first place (in her residence) or they tried to harm you or the kids while you were retrieving them.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    GeneticsDave wrote:
    I agree with Kevin.

    Jared, I think you would have a hard time in court if you went into the house and popped two into this guy, even if he had kidnapped your children. Granted you might be within the law, but I think too many would argue that what you did wasn't necessary given the circumstances. I think the only way that I could see using the sidearm is if you were preventing him from taking the kids in the first place (in her residence) or they tried to harm you or the kids while you were retrieving them.
    You may be right, but in my mind I'd be totally justified based on what I said... I open the door to the room, and he goes toward the kids or me, the kids and myself are within 21 feet, and I'm not waiting to find out what he's doing... If he backs away or doesn't move, like I said before, I would have no reason to fire.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bountiful, Utah, , USA
    Posts
    472

    Post imported post

    Jared, I think you're on the level and I agree with your last post. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

  19. #19
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    usSiR wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    SNIP I would have entered the residence with a concealed firearm,
    Good point. At the time you enter the home, you may noteven totally know yet if the kids are there, just going on an instinct.
    The woman said on the TV interview that she heard the kids from outside the house, either the kids were loud or a window was open.

    Really its too bad we have to think thing through like this because if you make the smallest unintentional mistake now makesyou the criminal.

    One of us might end up in some kind of situation, I really hope not, and can learn from other situations and learn the best possible way to analyze and proceed and hopefully not with deadly force
    Indeed. Just try to look at situations from the mind of a prosecutor. If you could bring a tough case against your own actions, then it's probably not a good idea to proceed unless you have covered your tail first. As sad as it is, the system is really against you. The criminals practically have more rights than we do.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    SNIP The criminals practically have more rights than we do.

    You've been tricked.

    The criminals can't possibly have more rights than we do.

    Remember Professor Duanes video. The 5th Amendment was made to protect innocent people.

    Even the old line, "Better a criminal go free than an innocent person is convicted," doesn't really tell the whole story. Certainly not the part of the story those in power do not want you to have.

    The plain fact is we as a people benefit far more from the restraints on government by declared rights than we suffer from criminals who delay or evade justice by exercising those same rights.

    If we didn't have declared rights the never-sated, power-hungry government would do us far more harm than criminals. Criminalsgenerally have a narrow sphere of influence. Government's sphere of influence is far broader, extending to every person in itsjurisdiction.

    Don't let anyone convince you that rights are bad because a criminal got away with something. Or got off on a "technicality". Those technicalities keep everybody safer from government.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    SNIP The criminals practically have more rights than we do.

    You've been tricked.

    The criminals can't possibly have more rights than we do.

    Remember Professor Duanes video. The 5th Amendment was made to protect innocent people.

    Even the old line, "Better a criminal go free than an innocent person is convicted," doesn't really tell the whole story. Certainly not the part of the story those in power do not want you to have.

    The plain fact is we as a people benefit far more from the restraints on government by declared rights than we suffer from criminals who delay or evade justice by exercising those same rights.

    If we didn't have declared rights the never-sated, power-hungry government would do us far more harm than criminals. Criminalsgenerally have a narrow sphere of influence. Government's sphere of influence is far broader, extending to every person in itsjurisdiction.

    Don't let anyone convince you that rights are bad because a criminal got away with something. Or got off on a "technicality". Those technicalities keep everybody safer from government.
    Wow. When you put it that way, it makes pretty good sense. Well put Citizen.


    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    Wow. When you put it that way, it makes pretty good sense. Well put Citizen.
    Thank you!


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    I can not imagine what I would do if someone took my son from my home.. I hope I have a grasp on my home so much that no one would be able to do something like this to me.

    Now if I did walk in and see this man with my son in his room, I would not need a gun, I would beat him to death with my own hands. I would be ENRAGED. Then I would plea temporaryinsanity, because it would be true. I do not care if it was the ICEMAN, or Rampage Jackson.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •