Police: Woman Twice Told Burglar To Leave, Then Shot Him

ozzy0028 · Aug 1, 2011

http://www.wlwt.com/news/28724799/detail.html

NEWPORT -- A woman told a burglar to leave twice before shooting him in the head, Newport police said Monday.
Phyllis Maloney, 63, told officers that a man she did not know walked in the back door of her home at 16th and Monmouth at about 1 a.m.
Maloney said she told the man to leave, but he refused. She said she then got a gun out of a drawer and pointed it at him, again telling him to leave.
When the man refused a second time and started moving toward her, Maloney told officers, she fired. A neighbor's surveillance camera captured the flash of the gunshot.
The man, believed to be in his 20s and wearing only boxer shorts, was found dead in a front room. His name has not been released.
Newport police are still investigating the incident.

Good ending!

SFCRetired · Aug 1, 2011

But he was such a good person! He was just getting his life turned around! She didn't have to shoot him! //sarcasm off//

I just hope this lady can put this unfortunate (for her) incident behind her and live out the remainder of her life in peace. I have no, repeat NO, sympathy for the man she was forced to shoot.

DWCook · Aug 1, 2011

Totally agree with your statement, It does not matter if the perp is 20 or 60. If you repeately told the suspect to leave and then turned around walking towards you I would shoot. Also the fact the idiot was in her house already which means, Breaking and entering is already enough to shoot the idiot.

MKEgal · Aug 1, 2011

The boxer shorts I can just barely understand 'cause of the heat,
but wandering into someone else's house & not leaving when told repeatedly?
And then going toward someone w/ a pistol pointed at you???
Sounds like he wanted to be dead.
Or maybe he was one of those "you're not gonna shoot me, b|tch" sorts of thugs.
Famous last words.

We-the-People · Aug 2, 2011

Ya gotta love a story with a happy ending.

frommycolddeadhands · Aug 2, 2011

Obviously somebody stole the poor boy's pants, and then in a mad attempt to get off the public street he ducked into the old woman's house. She told him to leave, he tried to explain himself but she was hard of hearing. Next thing you know she shoot him right in the grape. He goes down, gets labeled as a criminal, the old woman doesn't know any better, and the REAL crime....

....the pants thief is still out there....

ccwinstructor · Aug 2, 2011

Drunk/drugged, Party next door: Fatal error

MKEgal said:
The boxer shorts I can just barely understand 'cause of the heat,
but wandering into someone else's house & not leaving when told repeatedly?
And then going toward someone w/ a pistol pointed at you???
Sounds like he wanted to be dead.
Or maybe he was one of those "you're not gonna shoot me, b|tch" sorts of thugs.
Famous last words.

On another forum someone said that there was a party next door and he was likely drunk or drugged, and went to the wrong house. There was no mention of forced entry, but another person said the woman was on chemo and very fragile. That would make her extra careful, I would think.

Didn't Heinlein say that stupidity is punished by the universe without pity or appeal?

Deliberately, chemically, making yourself very stupid makes you very vulnerable.

sraacke · Aug 5, 2011

If it's true that he had wandered from a nearby party and may have been drunk or drugged out of his mind does it matter to anyone here? Personally I have no sympathy for any adult who drinks or drugs himself so badly that he ends up wandering into a strange house dressed only in his underware. If you drink moderatly and are responsible then there's little chance of something like this happening. When you get so Sh!tfaced that you show up in some old ladys house at 1am, Hey...Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Packer fan · Aug 10, 2011

I think I would fell bad for the woman having to know that she shot a man in her living room. How is she going to clean the blood?

OldCurlyWolf · Aug 13, 2011

ccwinstructor said:
On another forum someone said that there was a party next door and he was likely drunk or drugged, and went to the wrong house. There was no mention of forced entry, but another person said the woman was on chemo and very fragile. That would make her extra careful, I would think.

Didn't Heinlein say that stupidity is punished by the universe without pity or appeal?

Deliberately, chemically, making yourself very stupid makes you very vulnerable.

That sounds like Heinlein. My version is he died of a case of TERMINAL STUPIDITY.

We-the-People · Aug 14, 2011

OldCurlyWolf said:
That sounds like Heinlein. My version is he died of a case of TERMINAL STUPIDITY.

It's called "the theory of natural selection". You can read a lot about it in the Darwin Awards. Great concept that we should stop interfering with before the number of artificially "unselected" ones gets to be too damn big for society to deal with.

okboomer · Aug 14, 2011

We-the-People said:
It's called "the theory of natural selection". You can read a lot about it in the Darwin Awards. Great concept that we should stop interfering with before the number of artificially "unselected" ones gets to be too damn big for society to deal with.

IMHO we are "already there" but that is also one of the major benefits of civilization ... the luxury of being able to nurture and support non-viable individuals. When SHTF, many of these will not survive without specialized arrangements, most premature babies will not survive, women who need cesarean(sp?) to deliver because of small hips will have a much higher mortality rate in child birth. Right now, we, as a society have a surfeit of 'bodies' and there is not the pressure or necessity for learning the 'laws of nature' and how finite they are ... a civilization provides the opportunity for 'do overs' that are not available in more trying times.

rhoonah · Aug 17, 2011

Now I believe in a person's innate right to self defense and this situation appears to be a justifiable shooting but what has me concerned is the responses of people in this forum. Things like "good ending", "I have no sympathy", "Darwin awards", etc. is a bit over the top. In the end, a person lost their life. Now this person may have been bent on ill will toward the woman but he could have also been a mentally disturbed individual who really didn't know what he was doing. Or he could have been a kid whose buddies got him drunk as a joke and the guy was just looking for a place to take a leak. Yes he is responsible for his actions and again, she was justified in the shooting but in no way would he have "deserved" it or should we laugh and stroke our carry guns with some sense of moral superiority because he "got what he deserved". These are the attitudes that do damage to the RKBA lobby and send soccer moms to their representatives screaming how gun owners as crazy people just waiting to shoot someone.

Everyone claims to OC or CC in order to preserve life and lethal force should never be a joking matter. I find a different sympathy level for a gang banger looking to rape and pillage than a guy who foolishly got drunk and wandered into the wrong place. I find it disconcerting that some don't feel the same way while claiming to support the CC/OC movement. Then we wonder why states have discretionary may-issue laws and such because many would argue that someone with such a flipant attitude shouldn't own a firearm.

Just something to think about.

OldCurlyWolf · Aug 18, 2011

rhoonah said:
Now I believe in a person's innate right to self defense and this situation appears to be a justifiable shooting but what has me concerned is the responses of people in this forum. Things like "good ending", "I have no sympathy", "Darwin awards", etc. is a bit over the top. In the end, a person lost their life. Now this person may have been bent on ill will toward the woman but he could have also been a mentally disturbed individual who really didn't know what he was doing. Or he could have been a kid whose buddies got him drunk as a joke and the guy was just looking for a place to take a leak. Yes he is responsible for his actions and again, she was justified in the shooting but in no way would he have "deserved" it or should we laugh and stroke our carry guns with some sense of moral superiority because he "got what he deserved". These are the attitudes that do damage to the RKBA lobby and send soccer moms to their representatives screaming how gun owners as crazy people just waiting to shoot someone.

Everyone claims to OC or CC in order to preserve life and lethal force should never be a joking matter. I find a different sympathy level for a gang banger looking to rape and pillage than a guy who foolishly got drunk and wandered into the wrong place. I find it disconcerting that some don't feel the same way while claiming to support the CC/OC movement. Then we wonder why states have discretionary may-issue laws and such because many would argue that someone with such a flipant attitude shouldn't own a firearm.

Just something to think about.

Me personally, it depends on his attitude. I can read a drunk better than most. My reaction could range from throwing him out the door, to taking him down, hog tieing him and calling the pd to reacting much as she did and putting an end to the whole thing. It all depends on his level of aggression. Literally, he made the choice.

:banghead:

Verd · Aug 18, 2011

OldCurlyWolf said:
Me personally, it depends on his attitude. I can read a drunk better than most. My reaction could range from throwing him out the door, to taking him down, hog tieing him and calling the pd to reacting much as she did and putting an end to the whole thing. It all depends on his level of aggression. Literally, he made the choice.

:banghead:

QFT

If you cant handle your drink, dont drink it. Because what you do while on the stuff is your fault and yours alone.

I, personally, can also read drunks due to where I work and its close proximity to 3 bars. But I am not going to take the time to be sure that the drunk guy beating down my door is only doing it in order to take a leak in my toilet or force himself upon my wife. The ONLY reason that my home should ever be broken into without getting a bullet for their trouble is my family (in case we lock ourselves out) or rescue services (like firefighters if we are passed out due to smoke inhalation or something). Callous? Sure, but I am not going to risk my family on the offchance that some drunk, who was breaking my door down to take a leak, will suddenly behave himself with all his P's and Q's while using the bathroom.

okboomer · Aug 18, 2011

Rhoonah - I agree that some folks are coming off just a little more hardline than I am willing to post on a forum in public such as this, but I can definitely understand the attitude of "enough is enough" that represents.

To All:
For so many decades we have been told that self-defense is akin to aggression and that there is no place in our society for corporal punishment. IMHO that has led to the 'entitlement' attitude seen in so many inner-city residents who turn to crime. Crime statistics seem to bear out the relationship between high crime and an unarmed populace, and the recent statistics showing that all crime rates go down when there is a chance that a criminal might face an armed victim. Most telling of all the relationships between guns and crime is evidenced in Virginia where violence in bars has dropped dramatically after passage of a bill to allow non-drinking patrons to enter those establishments.

But, make no mistake about it ... if you are banging on my door at zero-dark-thirty, you will be met at the door with a weapon at the ready. If you break in, you stand a better than even chance of needing an ambulance to leave the property if you cannot justify your presence properly.

As for whether the guy deserved it or not, well, to drug yourself into such a state that you would break into a strange house, or to be around 'friends' who would do that to you, are not traits that I would imagine would lead to the expectation of a long life. 'We' as a society cannot pad all the sharp corners for those who will not take responsibility for their actions, nor should we be expected to be sympathetic to people who exhibit massive stupidity such as this. And I will not be 'shamed' into false sympathy statements to appease anyone else's sensibilities.

Now, if in the future it comes out that his 'friends' drugged him into that state without his knowledge (can you say manslaughter?), then I might have a little sympathy for the dead guy, but would also have to question his discernment in choosing his 'friends' and I would probably have second thoughts about how he was raised.

I would go so far as to say, "Sorry he was so stupid as to get himself into such a situation and not one 'friend' was looking out for him in that condition." But ultimately, it was HIS decision to partake.

the_hustleman · Aug 18, 2011

Stories like this give me such a warm fuzzy feeling inside!

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

Aknazer · Aug 18, 2011

We-the-People said:
It's called "the theory of natural selection". You can read a lot about it in the Darwin Awards. Great concept that we should stop interfering with before the number of artificially "unselected" ones gets to be too damn big for society to deal with.

okboomer said:
IMHO we are "already there" but that is also one of the major benefits of civilization ... the luxury of being able to nurture and support non-viable individuals. When SHTF, many of these will not survive without specialized arrangements, most premature babies will not survive, women who need cesarean(sp?) to deliver because of small hips will have a much higher mortality rate in child birth. Right now, we, as a society have a surfeit of 'bodies' and there is not the pressure or necessity for learning the 'laws of nature' and how finite they are ... a civilization provides the opportunity for 'do overs' that are not available in more trying times.

So what, my twins should have been allowed to die (they were ~7weeks early) and I should have potentially lost my wife in child-birth due to complications? There's a difference between coddling/breeding stupidity and using modern medicine to save a life. Our "surfeit of bodies" comes from coddling people who don't realize that coffee is hot, that cruise control=/=auto pilot, that using electronics in water is bad, etc.

Or maybe I should have been allowed to die to my appendix bursting as a child. Since, you know, that would be the 'laws of nature' and all.

okboomer · Aug 18, 2011

okboomer said:
IMHO we are "already there" but that is also one of the major benefits of civilization ... the luxury of being able to nurture and support non-viable individuals. When SHTF, many of these will not survive without specialized arrangements, most premature babies will not survive, women who need cesarean(sp?) to deliver because of small hips will have a much higher mortality rate in child birth. Right now, we, as a society have a surfeit of 'bodies' and there is not the pressure or necessity for learning the 'laws of nature' and how finite they are ... a civilization provides the opportunity for 'do overs' that are not available in more trying times.

Aknazer said:
So what, my twins should have been allowed to die (they were ~7weeks early) and I should have potentially lost my wife in child-birth due to complications? There's a difference between coddling/breeding stupidity and using modern medicine to save a life. Our "surfeit of bodies" comes from coddling people who don't realize that coffee is hot, that cruise control=/=auto pilot, that using electronics in water is bad, etc.

Or maybe I should have been allowed to die to my appendix bursting as a child. Since, you know, that would be the 'laws of nature' and all.

If you will reread what I posted, I was saying that because of our level of civilization, the conditions you describe would have been deadly just 100 years ago and if SHTF, will again become most likely death sentences. If we do not maintain a level of civilization that can remedy these conditions there will be a very large percentage of our population that will quickly die off due to lack of medical support such as insulin, high blood pressure meds, anti-rejection meds, etc. and then there is the whole other issue of simple infections that can turn quickly into systemic infections. Or surgeries to correct birth defects, repair injuries, etc.

I agree that there is a difference between coddling/breeding stupidity which is quite evident IMHO today. I did not advocate any sort of Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' and was only pointing out how close that scenario is in a SHTF situation. Speaking of coddling/breeding stupidity, how about the antibiotic resistant strains of viruses are there out there today? Without access to the IV antibiotic coctails it takes to defeat some of these infections, I expect certain metro populations to quickly die off from these types of infections.

However, PFW (who has made my ignore list) has advocated Darwinian Selection (not in this thread, elsewhere) for today's society (which got him on my list) and IMHO has a major disconnect in his thinking somewhere. By his apparant thinking, children born with downs' syndrome or induced retardation should not be allowed to live and that is ABSOLUTELY INSANE by my standards.

Aknazer · Aug 19, 2011

okboomer said:
If you will reread what I posted, I was saying that because of our level of civilization, the conditions you describe would have been deadly just 100 years ago and if SHTF, will again become most likely death sentences. If we do not maintain a level of civilization that can remedy these conditions there will be a very large percentage of our population that will quickly die off due to lack of medical support such as insulin, high blood pressure meds, anti-rejection meds, etc. and then there is the whole other issue of simple infections that can turn quickly into systemic infections. Or surgeries to correct birth defects, repair injuries, etc.

I agree that there is a difference between coddling/breeding stupidity which is quite evident IMHO today. I did not advocate any sort of Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' and was only pointing out how close that scenario is in a SHTF situation. Speaking of coddling/breeding stupidity, how about the antibiotic resistant strains of viruses are there out there today? Without access to the IV antibiotic coctails it takes to defeat some of these infections, I expect certain metro populations to quickly die off from these types of infections.

However, PFW (who has made my ignore list) has advocated Darwinian Selection (not in this thread, elsewhere) for today's society (which got him on my list) and IMHO has a major disconnect in his thinking somewhere. By his apparant thinking, children born with downs' syndrome or induced retardation should not be allowed to live and that is ABSOLUTELY INSANE by my standards.

Ahh. Maybe I read it wrong, but it came across to me as if you were more supporting the Darwinian Selection and Natural Selection. Personally I do support Darwinian Selection to a degree. For example, if someone tries to use their curling iron in the shower and gets electrocuted, well I'll try not to laugh as I hear the story. Or the picture I saw where these people had daisy-chained electrical cords IN A POOL and were simply using a floating sandal to prevent the plugin portion from touching the water.

Police: Woman Twice Told Burglar To Leave, Then Shot Him

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Centurion

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member