simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
I live in a county where it can take police that long to respond.
I live in a county where it can take police that long to respond.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Woman shoots and kills intruder in Lincoln County Read more: http://newsok.com/woman-shoots-and-kil
- Thread starter Taurus145
- Start date
lil_freak_66
Regular Member
imported post
simmonsjoe wrote:
thats the one thing(probably the only thing) i like about having moved from the farm to into the city,im not an hour+ from the nearest hospital and it wont take a half hour for LEO's to arrive should i ever need them.
people whom think they are safe just because they are in a small town,or out of town are sadly mistaken,just because something hasnt happened in awhile,doesnt mean it wont happen again.
simmonsjoe wrote:
as many of us do.
thats the one thing(probably the only thing) i like about having moved from the farm to into the city,im not an hour+ from the nearest hospital and it wont take a half hour for LEO's to arrive should i ever need them.
people whom think they are safe just because they are in a small town,or out of town are sadly mistaken,just because something hasnt happened in awhile,doesnt mean it wont happen again.
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
lil_freak_66 wrote:
I agree there is always a contingent that becomes complacent.
lil_freak_66 wrote:
I think maybe people away from the cities feel safer because more houses have shotguns in the closet / under the bed. Its more of a less crime because it is safer and there is more opportunity for bad guys in the cities. There have been a few, very few incidents in my area. More often than not, the Bad Guy is dead or injured. The risk is just too high.
I agree there is always a contingent that becomes complacent.
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
This is the same guy who used patio furniture that wasn't his, while avoiding dogs that weren't his, to break into a house that wasn't his.
I believe the guy was at the wrong house.
I don't believe the guy thought he was at his own house.
As to the issue of addressing the intruder, I have two points:
1 This is her home, she has no obligation to flee from a burglar, even if it could avoid bloodshed.
2 Trying to communicate with the intruder could put you at a disadvantage. He will know your in the house, and approx. where in the house you are.
Generally I agree trying to avoid lethal force is the best course of action.
I draw the line at nighttime intruders. I put absolutely no moral expectations on a homeowner in this situation. Not a single one.
Anything above and beyond what was done here would be an act of pure charity. We simply can't expect that from anyone. I am a young and large man that is very proficient with firearms. I would have risked some other options before shooting. That would have been my prerogative. Now if my mother had wanted to risk other options? I'd chastise her and say 'just shoot him.'
ixtow wrote:
I understand where your coming from. I am doubtful that someone so drunk, they don't know what house their at, lost their pickup truck, and walked through fields to someones back door would comprehend anything you told him.
This is the same guy who used patio furniture that wasn't his, while avoiding dogs that weren't his, to break into a house that wasn't his.
I believe the guy was at the wrong house.
I don't believe the guy thought he was at his own house.
As to the issue of addressing the intruder, I have two points:
1 This is her home, she has no obligation to flee from a burglar, even if it could avoid bloodshed.
2 Trying to communicate with the intruder could put you at a disadvantage. He will know your in the house, and approx. where in the house you are.
Generally I agree trying to avoid lethal force is the best course of action.
I draw the line at nighttime intruders. I put absolutely no moral expectations on a homeowner in this situation. Not a single one.
Anything above and beyond what was done here would be an act of pure charity. We simply can't expect that from anyone. I am a young and large man that is very proficient with firearms. I would have risked some other options before shooting. That would have been my prerogative. Now if my mother had wanted to risk other options? I'd chastise her and say 'just shoot him.'
lil_freak_66
Regular Member
imported post
simmonsjoe wrote:
i dont think its smart when people think they are safe just because of an encased unloaded shotgun under the bed,most of my family is that way and thinks they are safe.
a gun a minute or 2 away is better than a cop 10 or 20 minutes away,but i prefer to keep something 10-20 seconds away at the very most.
simmonsjoe wrote:
i dont think its smart when people think they are safe just because of an encased unloaded shotgun under the bed,most of my family is that way and thinks they are safe.
a gun a minute or 2 away is better than a cop 10 or 20 minutes away,but i prefer to keep something 10-20 seconds away at the very most.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
i agree with this post 110%!!! im sure i posted a reply that says just what you said!!
she had sooo much free time to yell out, to warn him.
it may not have taken too much effort to make him see his error.
i think we have a duty to give fare warning (when possible) before using deadly force!!
ixtow wrote:
this story is kinda old,, and its been posted in other forums, at other times, but
i agree with this post 110%!!! im sure i posted a reply that says just what you said!!
she had sooo much free time to yell out, to warn him.
it may not have taken too much effort to make him see his error.
i think we have a duty to give fare warning (when possible) before using deadly force!!
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
simmonsjoe wrote:
Regardless of how effective you think it may or may not have been, with a shotgun in your hand, you do have the luxury of at least testing the theory.
If we have become so callous and crass a race of beings as to make no effort at all to avoid killing each other, and exhalt it, why not just all commit suicide right now? It would certainly make the world a much better place.
Your argument seems to suggest that some drunk guy banging around outside sets off a little lightbulb in your head that says "I finally get to kill someone, SWEET! All I have to do is be quiet and wait!" Is that really what you intend to argue for?
I'm stating to wonder if the Brady's might be right about some of us...
simmonsjoe wrote:
So?
Regardless of how effective you think it may or may not have been, with a shotgun in your hand, you do have the luxury of at least testing the theory.
If we have become so callous and crass a race of beings as to make no effort at all to avoid killing each other, and exhalt it, why not just all commit suicide right now? It would certainly make the world a much better place.
Your argument seems to suggest that some drunk guy banging around outside sets off a little lightbulb in your head that says "I finally get to kill someone, SWEET! All I have to do is be quiet and wait!" Is that really what you intend to argue for?
I'm stating to wonder if the Brady's might be right about some of us...
imported post
ixtow wrote:
How about YOU "...test that theory..." and if you live, you can return and post your results....?
This was not "...situation presents self..." for purpose(s) of "...using the firearm..." this was a situation that PRESENTED itself to the victim in the home, by someone who did NO live there... every right to defend self here.
Personal responsibility does not simply start/stop with LAC's; it also starts/stops with those who are not LAC - and their actions, up/down, will and should have consequences.
Always easier to "day after..." woulda, coulda, shoulda... done.... victim had seconds/minutes to handle a situation, that was NOT of her doing, engagement, nor did the victim seek-it-out.....
ixtow wrote:
How about YOU "...test that theory..." and if you live, you can return and post your results....?
This was not "...situation presents self..." for purpose(s) of "...using the firearm..." this was a situation that PRESENTED itself to the victim in the home, by someone who did NO live there... every right to defend self here.
Personal responsibility does not simply start/stop with LAC's; it also starts/stops with those who are not LAC - and their actions, up/down, will and should have consequences.
Always easier to "day after..." woulda, coulda, shoulda... done.... victim had seconds/minutes to handle a situation, that was NOT of her doing, engagement, nor did the victim seek-it-out.....
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Remember that part where I was wondering if the Bradys were right? Not wondering anymore. Gun control is definitely looking like a good idea.
Making zero effort to avoid killing someone, especially when it is obvious that the "assailant" is very disoriented, is just plain wrong. Deadly force should be a last resort. If "kill" is the only thought you can have, and you think that is a good thing, you're a very sick person.
Remember that part where I was wondering if the Bradys were right? Not wondering anymore. Gun control is definitely looking like a good idea.
Making zero effort to avoid killing someone, especially when it is obvious that the "assailant" is very disoriented, is just plain wrong. Deadly force should be a last resort. If "kill" is the only thought you can have, and you think that is a good thing, you're a very sick person.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Time permitting, "Stop!" possibly followed with, again time permitting, "I have a gun/shotgun!" is all the "fair" warning an intruder should get. After that, shoot.
I am not advocating killing the BG, just stopping him. Since I would be aiming center mass, death is a distinct possibility, just not my actual goal.
Self-defense is about stopping the threat. If a few (very few) quick (very quick) words do the trick, fine. Otherwise...
Time permitting, "Stop!" possibly followed with, again time permitting, "I have a gun/shotgun!" is all the "fair" warning an intruder should get. After that, shoot.
I am not advocating killing the BG, just stopping him. Since I would be aiming center mass, death is a distinct possibility, just not my actual goal.
Self-defense is about stopping the threat. If a few (very few) quick (very quick) words do the trick, fine. Otherwise...
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
Do you suppose half an hour is long enough to squeeze out that quick warning?
eye95 wrote:
Do you suppose half an hour is long enough to squeeze out that quick warning?
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
If you have a concern that some persons are just looking for an excuse, that is valid and you should bring it up. It has merit on its own. Slandering me in order to bring that concern into the discussion only serves to devalue that concern.
It is especially insulting on a personal level, since I agreed with you that I personally would have attempted alternative solutions, even if I couldn't expect it of others.
ixtow wrote:
I do not feel it is appropriate for you to cut out a portion of what I said and attack it out of context. Later down in my post I clearly extrapolated on the idea. You have replaced my extrapolation with your own views of what you think I must mean and then attacked it. I don't really understand how quoting me has any value, as your not actually discussing what I was talking about.
If you have a concern that some persons are just looking for an excuse, that is valid and you should bring it up. It has merit on its own. Slandering me in order to bring that concern into the discussion only serves to devalue that concern.
It is especially insulting on a personal level, since I agreed with you that I personally would have attempted alternative solutions, even if I couldn't expect it of others.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
simmonsjoe wrote:
I realize I'm exceptionally hostile, and my tone is not so easy to follow.
My intent is to demonstrate how the reasons you state can go much further than you intend, not that you personally made that argument. I believe I made it clear that I doubted you really meant to make that argument. Indeed, it was my intent to take your statement out of context, to show just how far-reaching it can be. Maybe you would show restraint and common sense, but, obviously, as this dead guy can attest, not everyone would.
I can understand how a scared little old lady would not be thinking all of these possibilities. But is it not the dispatcher's job to aim for the best possible outcome? Yet "Blow his ass away" is the only concept considered for the entire half hour, in spite of glaring and obvious indicators that he doesn't even know she's in there, where he is, and likely has no intent to do her harm. So much for exhausting all options...
Shouting a few words to inform him he's in the wrong place, or to just say "I have a gun" would in no way make her shotgun less effective should he continue. It was a no lose situation. Being clearly disoriented, no 'tactical' or 'strategic' advantage would be lost; she's still hiding in the dark with a big gun and an easy shot. It was almost an 'ambush on the stupid.'
Supporting that view means the Brady's are right and gun-owners cannot be trusted to be responsible. Killing people just becasue you can legally get away with it seems a very reprehensible course. While I have always said no one should be debarred the use of arms; this attitude taught me to make an exception, and I am logically forced to begin down the path of defining 'only ones.'
I picked up on at least 4 indicators that this man was just drunk, didn't know where he was, and had no idea anyone was even in the house. Why didn't the dispatcher? The homeowner?
Sure, no obligation... She still has to live with it, and it didn't have to happen.
simmonsjoe wrote:
You're taking it personally.
I realize I'm exceptionally hostile, and my tone is not so easy to follow.
My intent is to demonstrate how the reasons you state can go much further than you intend, not that you personally made that argument. I believe I made it clear that I doubted you really meant to make that argument. Indeed, it was my intent to take your statement out of context, to show just how far-reaching it can be. Maybe you would show restraint and common sense, but, obviously, as this dead guy can attest, not everyone would.
I can understand how a scared little old lady would not be thinking all of these possibilities. But is it not the dispatcher's job to aim for the best possible outcome? Yet "Blow his ass away" is the only concept considered for the entire half hour, in spite of glaring and obvious indicators that he doesn't even know she's in there, where he is, and likely has no intent to do her harm. So much for exhausting all options...
Shouting a few words to inform him he's in the wrong place, or to just say "I have a gun" would in no way make her shotgun less effective should he continue. It was a no lose situation. Being clearly disoriented, no 'tactical' or 'strategic' advantage would be lost; she's still hiding in the dark with a big gun and an easy shot. It was almost an 'ambush on the stupid.'
Supporting that view means the Brady's are right and gun-owners cannot be trusted to be responsible. Killing people just becasue you can legally get away with it seems a very reprehensible course. While I have always said no one should be debarred the use of arms; this attitude taught me to make an exception, and I am logically forced to begin down the path of defining 'only ones.'
I picked up on at least 4 indicators that this man was just drunk, didn't know where he was, and had no idea anyone was even in the house. Why didn't the dispatcher? The homeowner?
Sure, no obligation... She still has to live with it, and it didn't have to happen.
JT
Regular Member
imported post
The man being drunk does not excuse him of his actions in this instance. The woman had no obligation (moral or legal)to confront or warnthe man. She had every right to try to avoid a confrontation with such a person. The Brady's aren't right and the woman wasn't wrong. If you would have handled it differently that is your perogative.
The moral responsibility for the killing belongs to the intruder just as it would if he had gotten behind the wheel of a car drunkand died in an accident. It isa shame that he got so drunk that he put himself in suchdangerbut thankfully in this case, he didn't take anyone else with him.
The man being drunk does not excuse him of his actions in this instance. The woman had no obligation (moral or legal)to confront or warnthe man. She had every right to try to avoid a confrontation with such a person. The Brady's aren't right and the woman wasn't wrong. If you would have handled it differently that is your perogative.
The moral responsibility for the killing belongs to the intruder just as it would if he had gotten behind the wheel of a car drunkand died in an accident. It isa shame that he got so drunk that he put himself in suchdangerbut thankfully in this case, he didn't take anyone else with him.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I bid you good day sirs, I'm embarassed to have been associated.
I bid you good day sirs, I'm embarassed to have been associated.
Trekker
Regular Member
imported post
JT wrote:
This is the second time I've listened to this audio - lady is home by herself, woken up after midnight by someone knocking on the back door, husband is at work. Front gate is locked. She handled the situation very well, she stood her ground, talked calmly with 911 operator.
She did not go looking for trouble, the fact she asked them to hurry, 'please hurry', tells me she was not looking forward to what followed. I admire her. As I recall from the original article they later found a woman he was witrh passed out in a pickup truck, from booze or drugs.
She chose not to be a victim, to think that she has to somehow has to take other actions is ridiculous.
JT wrote:
Well said.
This is the second time I've listened to this audio - lady is home by herself, woken up after midnight by someone knocking on the back door, husband is at work. Front gate is locked. She handled the situation very well, she stood her ground, talked calmly with 911 operator.
She did not go looking for trouble, the fact she asked them to hurry, 'please hurry', tells me she was not looking forward to what followed. I admire her. As I recall from the original article they later found a woman he was witrh passed out in a pickup truck, from booze or drugs.
She chose not to be a victim, to think that she has to somehow has to take other actions is ridiculous.
JT
Regular Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Also your perogative. I'm sorry you feel that way but I respect your right to have such an opinion. I can't fault the woman for being afraid for her life in such an instance. Drunk people can be and often aredangerous. She had no obligation to find out what type of drunk the man was before she defended herself.
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
Hi 'ixtow'
You wrote
"If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."
There's nothing in the above Scripture about asking or calling out to the one breaking in to ones home if they know they have broken into the right or wrong home?
Woman calling out; "Excuse me sir, do you ralise you have just broken into the wrong house?"
Criminal response; "Oh I am so sorry madam, I thought I was breaking into my own home. Please dont shoot, I will leave immediately through the very door or window I just broke through?"
Chuk-chuk-Boom!
Hi 'ixtow'
You wrote
.
"If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."
There's nothing in the above Scripture about asking or calling out to the one breaking in to ones home if they know they have broken into the right or wrong home?
Woman calling out; "Excuse me sir, do you ralise you have just broken into the wrong house?"
Criminal response; "Oh I am so sorry madam, I thought I was breaking into my own home. Please dont shoot, I will leave immediately through the very door or window I just broke through?"
Chuk-chuk-Boom!
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
Anybody home?
Anybody home?
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
Hmmmm, whichdoor will I try?
Hmmmm, whichdoor will I try?