Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder

[Skaloop]

what if he had an accomplice. its only chance that she was right about the number of intruders.

That's not was was being discussed, though. The discussion was that he took five shots but was still alive so she should have had more rounds.

 

[marshlewis]

That's not was was being discussed, though. The discussion was that he took five shots but was still alive so she should have had more rounds.

could you elaborate, I dont understand.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Going in at 1pm meant he probably hoped to avoid the owners. Not finding anyone about in the house probably made him conclude he had succeeded and so he had a good look around. What he would have done if the woman was unarmed, possibly nothing but not worth considering if you were the woman. safety first.

He may the type to hit the house early so the husbands aren't home, or thinking that both couples are at work too.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Okay, just read another article, and this makes sense that it was a simple robbery and not an attempted rape or murder. He checked to see if someone was home first, and when she didnt answer the door knock, then proceeded to break in for a robbery.

The woman, who was home with her 9-year-old twins, heard the man knock at the door. She called her husband, who said that he wasn't expecting anyone at the house.

The woman said that the man went to his vehicle and returned with a crowbar. The man then forced his way inside and rummaged through the home.

Article further states that when he opened attic door she started shooting him. So I doubt he knew anyone was home and didn't expect to be shot when he opened the attic door.

And wow, when following updates news articles through google I stumbled up on a serious hate site listing the article

 

[iluvatar5150]

what if he had an accomplice. its only chance that she was right about the number of intruders.

Ok, so now we're up to 10-12 rounds.

-Dan.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Does ANYONE expect to get shot at when they open the attic door?

 

[JCFantasy23]

Does ANYONE expect to get shot at when they open the attic door?

lol No, especially if he didn't think anyone was at home.

 

[Lilly Owl]

When it's not their attic, or their house, they certainly shouldn't be surprised when they are shot.

What would this dialog entail if this woman and her daughters were found raped and murdered in their attic?

Does anyone feel sorry for the intruder?

 

[JCFantasy23]

When it's not their attic, or their house, they certainly shouldn't be surprised when they are shot.

What would this dialog entail if this woman and her daughters were found raped and murdered in their attic?

Does anyone feel sorry for the intruder?

We're not debating that, just saying I'm sure he was surprised. Another article I read said he knocked on the door and rang the bell several times, so he very likely assumed no one was there.

And we can assume rape and murder but I seriously doubt it in this situation. Everything points to a robbery.

 

[mpok1519]

So we should let people own whatever weapon they want?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So we should let people own whatever weapon they want?

Personal freedom and all that, so yeah, absolutely.

 

[Lilly Owl]

We're not debating that, just saying I'm sure he was surprised. Another article I read said he knocked on the door and rang the bell several times, so he very likely assumed no one was there.

And we can assume rape and murder but I seriously doubt it in this situation. Everything points to a robbery.

And that's why he went to the highest part of the house to an attic crawl space?
Because what? All those goods worth robbing must have been there?

So we should let people own whatever weapon they want?

Yes!
When any weapon perps want can be had on the streets, you better believe it.

 

[mpok1519]

Personal freedom and all that, so yeah, absolutely.

Ah. So if you wanted to own weaponized Ebola you should be free to?

 

[mpok1519]

Yes!
When any weapon perps want can be had on the streets, you better believe it.

Thats flat put paranoid delusion though.

Because someone might have the ability to procure something that can cause untold damage and destruction YOU should be ALLOWED and encouraged to do the same?

That is paranoia.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Ah. So if you wanted to own weaponized Ebola you should be free to?

Yep. Like I said, these days everything is all about the personal freedoms.

 

[mpok1519]

Yep. Like I said, these days everything is all about the personal freedoms.

Yes. And it's in the interests of my and everyone's personal freedom that you are not allowed to own weaponized Ebola.

 

[Skaloop]

could you elaborate, I dont understand.

Well, Seeking Christ said "No. This perp took 5 well-placed rounds, and still lives. In many self-defense situations you will miss more often than you can connect, and encounter multiple assailants. The woman who refused to be a victim (good for her!) landed 5 out of 6 shots, and placed them well. Obviously having 3x that much ammo at your disposal without having to re-load is, de facto, NOT excessive."

The "still lives" part indicates to me that merely stopping the guy wasn't enough and that she needed more rounds to make sure he died.

Then, Lilly Owl said "Not excessive at all. There were 4 exit wounds.
Shoot till he stops moving! No apologies.
He trespassed in her home and hunted her and her daughters to the highest point seeking them out to commit his evil. He presumed they were easy marks. He found out they weren't.

The tragedy is, he lived. Now there's a hospital bill the tax payers will have to cover so he can be brought to health and stand trial. Hopefully there's a prisoner serving LwoP who will have a great fondness for mom's defending their children and this perp will get what he had coming. Better late than never."

A guy broke into a house. A woman defended her home with a gun and the burglary was stopped. Whatever my feelings on guns are, I am OK with that. Anything more, though, is excessive. He did not and does not need to die for this.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Yes. And it's in the interests of my and everyone's personal freedom that you are not allowed to own weaponized Ebola.

Your freedoms? Why would I care about YOUR freedoms? Why do your personal opinions affect the way I live my life?

 

[JCFantasy23]

And that's why he went to the highest part of the house to an attic crawl space?
Because what? All those goods worth robbing must have been there?

Um, sure?

When we were robbed they got in our attic. We came back from vacation to find out they had broken in and they pulled things down from up there too, including my moms coin and money collection.

I can understand if he hadn't knocked and rang the bell to assume he was after them too, but him checking first and them not answering really indicates he didn't know anyone was there. All reports also say he had a crowbar but not another weapon. I would assume if he was after people personally he'd have brought other weapons, like at least a knife or maybe a gun. And none of his crimes before were above simple assault, which usually means a fist fight.

 

[seeking Christ]

He took five shots and was no longer a threat. No more bullets were needed. Because what is the intent of using a firearm in self-defense? To stop your attacker, or to kill your attacker? I understand that the first may require the second, but in this case it did not. Why would any more rounds have been necessary?

Very excellent job you did at ignoring what was said, to insert your own ideas, for the malicious purpose of making me look like a fool. I think that's just about enough of that nonsense, don't you?

Here again is my post you were responding to, this time with what you're maliciously skipping over emphasized, to make it literally impossible to miss:

No. This perp took 5 well-placed rounds, and still lives. In many self-defense situations you will miss more often than you can connect, and encounter multiple assailants. The woman who refused to be a victim (good for her!) landed 5 out of 6 shots, and placed them well. Obviously having 3x that much ammo at your disposal without having to re-load is, de facto, NOT excessive.

You see, if you were in a situation where 1/2 your shots went into cover because your assailant was using cover and/or moving, and you had as few as 2 assailants, you would then need 4x as much ammo to achieve the same results she did in this situation, where the perp couldn't be killed and all she could do was bluff. And said perp STILL got away, so your claim he was no longer a threat is bogus. Therefore it becomes proven that a 19 round clip isn't excessive for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and this surprises me greatly because she was using what is considered to be a high powered gun, not some .22.