Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[Tel]

does it matter if he entered to kill the people of steal stuff either way its a crime?

Trespassing allows the owner of the home to defend him/herself by any means available if I'm correct. So shooting him was not only legal, it was justified. He was supposedly rummaging through their belongings, which helps her case.

No, you can't normally just shoot someone. Nor can you do it because someone was just walking across the edge of your lawn to avoid a puddle on the sidewalk. It's more specific than that. But you can if they enter your home without your permission and you feel threatened.

If I'm correct, he didn't attempt to give away his presence to any people in the house such as calling out and announcing himself, which is suspicious in itself. What would you do if you found me snooping about your house one day, a completely unfamiliar stranger just walking about your house?

[Inyourfaceistan]

does it matter if he entered to kill the people of steal stuff either way its a crime?

Trespassing allows the owner of the home to defend him/herself by any means available if I'm correct. So shooting him was not only legal, it was justified. He was supposedly rummaging through their belongings, which helps her case.

No, you can't normally just shoot someone. Nor can you do it because someone was just walking across the edge of your lawn to avoid a puddle on the sidewalk. It's more specific than that. But you can if they enter your home without your permission and you feel threatened.

If I'm correct, he didn't attempt to give away his presence to any people in the house such as calling out and announcing himself, which is suspicious in itself. What would you do if you found me snooping about your house one day, a completely unfamiliar stranger just walking about your house?

He did ring the doorbell, and when there was no response he got a crowbar and broke in.

[Republica Newland]

She was hiding with her children in that closet.

. . .

I'm now thinking of how ironically dangerous that was.

Sure,cause you being a mother with your kids having your house broken into - your predator instincts will kick in or you'll immediately think about some tactical training or smth like that.
How ironic.

[Chernoslavia]

Bullshit: http://rense.com/general32/nine.htm

Rinse and repeat.

Oh please you're living in denial. Since when if ever is firing a projectile ever safe? Also I offered no analogy I gave a fact, less guns means less gun deaths. No amount of side stepping or euphemisms can change that.

Yeah that blog isn't much better then the Youtube clip. Someone with an inherent bias offers up sources that aren't linked and most likely edited to fit their narrative. It is a hilarious read though. Take myth #1. 35,000 people die by gun violence but think of all the people that didn't because guns!! I'm paraphrasing to be sure but c'mon... and you can't see the problem with that? I had you pegged as smarter then this.

35,000 death in a country of 305 million isnt that many, and much less when its divided up. And if your accusing someone of ''editing'' their source, then how do we know you didnt edit yours? Care to explain?

[Chernoslavia]

Primarily the registration requirements (which would be covered under my perpetual license plan) and the renewal requirements.

How is renewal of a license to own a firearm every five to seven years an undue hardship? It's not something that would be overly expensive assuming standard fees apply in my state, for example, it would be $25 every five to seven years. That's a total of ~$185 over a lifetime of seventy years or so assuming we go with the seven year renewal plan. If you want, we could even combine the two steps and include your registration with your licensing.

If a person cannot afford $185 or so over a period of seventy years it is quite remarkable they are able to own and maintain a firearm.

Edit: and a 30 day waiting period when we already have an instant background check.

One would have to acquire the statement from a medical professional in-between the stated desire to purchase and purchase. What would be an acceptable waiting time for you for this to be accomplished? Five business days? Ten business days?

But if im buying a gun on save at a particular shop, cant I just do the background check buy the gun thats already in the store and leave? Why make someone waist five days of their lifetime?

[Republica Newland]

Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Oh guess what boo-frikin'-hoo it's a YouTube clip.But its' sources are the FBI and the Home Office (UK).This can be verified any time and to any disbelievers,go ahead and do so.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Oh guess what boo-frikin'-hoo it's a YouTube clip.But its' sources are the FBI and the Home Office (UK).This can be verified any time and to any disbelievers,go ahead and do so.

Will have to check those stats out more in depth later, but he does have a very solid point backed up by some good sources from an initial scan of things.

[Chernoslavia]

Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Oh guess what boo-frikin'-hoo it's a YouTube clip.But its' sources are the FBI and the Home Office (UK).This can be verified any time and to any disbelievers,go ahead and do so.

Excellent!

[Zephie]

What an evil woman using a gun to defend herself. She should have just let herself be raped and killed like a good unarmed citizen.
She can't be trusted. She might shoot up her children's school now, and her husband, then herself. Then kill God when she gets sent up to heaven with a golden AK47...

[Republica Newland]

What an evil woman using a gun to defend herself. She should have just let herself be raped and killed like a good unarmed citizen.
She can't be trusted. She might shoot up her children's school now, and her husband, then herself. Then kill God when she gets sent up to heaven with a golden AK47.

The Liberal US of A should make it a National Day of Mourning for the burglar.

[The Mizarian Empire]

See heres my problem with people getting up in arms to defend the robber. Its pretty much a given (as was stated before) that the individual in question ( the burglar/robber) was checking to be sure no one was home. He then broke into their home and began taking their personal/private possessions. While some of it may have been easily replaced, whos to say he wouldn't have taken something of extreme personal or sentimental value? While we're on this subject, whos to say how the robber would have reacted had he been armed? This is alot of "what ifs", I understand. But the point remains that when you step into someone else's home and begin taking their property, which they earned with their own blood;sweat and tears, just how much of an upstanding community person do you sound like? I'm not saying we need to go actively lynching every single person whos ever stolen something, but just as a child should be punished for being caught doing something wrong, these criminals are being punished for their wrong-doing.

Now before you go on a hate-filled "HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT RABBLERABBLERABBLE" consider this. The American prison system is a joke, and not a funny one either. Living in prison is not easy ( "YA DON'T SAY?" some of you will remark), between threats and actual acts of physical and sexual assault, murder and other heinous acts. Someone that could've been thrown in for something as simple as joy-riding or other petty crimes may have to endure traumatic experiences that could turn an otherwise quiet, respectful person into a loud, violent maniac. Not to mention the fact that criminals have actually sued the very victims whom they burglarized AND WON.

Source
1: http://articles.mcall.com/2002-09-28/ne ... pellet-gun
2: http://www.dreamindemon.com/2012/10/25/ ... -shooting/

The judicial system in our country is fucked. And i'm not about to allow some schmuck who thought he should be allowed to profit off my hard-earned personal property because he can't or won't get a job.

[Chrome Legion]

Am I the only one that read the whole articles? The man didn't die, and you all need to learn to goddamn read, as to the shooting since he lived I think it's justified, though if he had died I would be against it.

[Zephie]

See heres my problem with people getting up in arms to defend the robber. Its pretty much a given (as was stated before) that the individual in question ( the burglar/robber) was checking to be sure no one was home. He then broke into their home and began taking their personal/private possessions. While some of it may have been easily replaced, whos to say he wouldn't have taken something of extreme personal or sentimental value? While we're on this subject, whos to say how the robber would have reacted had he been armed? This is alot of "what ifs", I understand. But the point remains that when you step into someone else's home and begin taking their property, which they earned with their own blood;sweat and tears, just how much of an upstanding community person do you sound like? I'm not saying we need to go actively lynching every single person whos ever stolen something, but just as a child should be punished for being caught doing something wrong, these criminals are being punished for their wrong-doing.

Now before you go on a hate-filled "HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT RABBLERABBLERABBLE" consider this. The American prison system is a joke, and not a funny one either. Living in prison is not easy ( "YA DON'T SAY?" some of you will remark), between threats and actual acts of physical and sexual assault, murder and other heinous acts. Someone that could've been thrown in for something as simple as joy-riding or other petty crimes may have to endure traumatic experiences that could turn an otherwise quiet, respectful person into a loud, violent maniac. Not to mention the fact that criminals have actually sued the very victims whom they burglarized AND WON.

Source
1: http://articles.mcall.com/2002-09-28/ne ... pellet-gun
2: http://www.dreamindemon.com/2012/10/25/ ... -shooting/

The judicial system in our country is fucked. And i'm not about to allow some schmuck who thought he should be allowed to profit off my hard-earned personal property because he can't or won't get a job.

There's no way to know if someone breaking into your home wants to kill you or steal your stuff. Either way, they are in the wrong for breaking into your home in the first place. They deserve to be shot. A more forgiving person would hold the criminal up at gunpoint and call the police, but that leaves the chance of the criminal escaping or shooting back, because in the middle of the night who knows if he's armed or not.

[Republica Newland]

See heres my problem with people getting up in arms to defend the robber. Its pretty much a given (as was stated before) that the individual in question ( the burglar/robber) was checking to be sure no one was home. He then broke into their home and began taking their personal/private possessions. While some of it may have been easily replaced, whos to say he wouldn't have taken something of extreme personal or sentimental value? While we're on this subject, whos to say how the robber would have reacted had he been armed? This is alot of "what ifs", I understand. But the point remains that when you step into someone else's home and begin taking their property, which they earned with their own blood;sweat and tears, just how much of an upstanding community person do you sound like? I'm not saying we need to go actively lynching every single person whos ever stolen something, but just as a child should be punished for being caught doing something wrong, these criminals are being punished for their wrong-doing.

Now before you go on a hate-filled "HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT RABBLERABBLERABBLE" consider this. The American prison system is a joke, and not a funny one either. Living in prison is not easy ( "YA DON'T SAY?" some of you will remark), between threats and actual acts of physical and sexual assault, murder and other heinous acts. Someone that could've been thrown in for something as simple as joy-riding or other petty crimes may have to endure traumatic experiences that could turn an otherwise quiet, respectful person into a loud, violent maniac. Not to mention the fact that criminals have actually sued the very victims whom they burglarized AND WON.

Source
1: http://articles.mcall.com/2002-09-28/ne ... pellet-gun
2: http://www.dreamindemon.com/2012/10/25/ ... -shooting/

The judicial system in our country is fucked. And i'm not about to allow some schmuck who thought he should be allowed to profit off my hard-earned personal property because he can't or won't get a job.

""3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pa., was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. Mr. Dickson sued the homeowner's insurance, claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars."

If something like this would ever happen to me,I would kill the robber and the jury without even flinching and then would go out in style. This.is.in.fucking.credible.
L.E.: Never mind. Hoax. You should research your sources better before posting them you know.

[The Mizarian Empire]

If something like this would ever happen to me,I would kill the robber and the jury without even flinching and then would go out in style. This.is.in.fucking.credible.
L.E.: Never mind. Hoax. You should research your sources better before posting them you know.

While that particular one may have been, such trials are NOT uncommon, a half-hearted search of google will quickly prove this.

[Neo Mitanni]

"Remember when all the #NRA guys said that Travon Martin would still be alive if he'd had a concealed 9mm? Me neither."

-John Fugelsang

Right,because that has everything to do with our case.

That case hasn't even been settled yet.

Ask that question again after George Zimmerman is completely exonerated.

[Jocabia]

Actually, according to the NRA, the collection of data on the incidents involving guns by any unbiased agency is going to result in anti-gun policies. Apparently, the problem is the bias of the researchers, but rather the bias of the data towards limiting access to guns.

That's why they worked to prevent the collection of data by the CDC, a group whose data collection they trust, since they cite the statistics they do collect all the time. And when that restriction still allowed other research focused on safety and health, they expanded the restriction to the entire Department of Health and Safety. Why? Because a bias toward injury prevention and public health, by it's very nature, is a bias against guns according to the NRA.

You're right. There is a tendency by those who have enough information about the problem to be "anti-gun". What does that tell you?

What it tells anyone who gives it any critical thought at all is that these brilliant researchers are the people Ben Franklin warned about. They would sacrifice freedom for security, and deserve neither.

"Injury prevention and public health" are interests that are far outweighed by preservation of individual liberty. The only place you will find an injury-free and completely healthy society is inside the Pearly Gates.

Yes, because that's totally what they're trying to accomplish, and injury-free and completely healthy society. If you can't actually debate on the subject of what they do, then don't. Don't just make it up and pretend like you're talking about reality.

[Neu Acadie]

Why do you assume that I am mentally incompetent? Why does the government assume that I am a criminal? Innocent until PROVEN guilty.


Perhaps. perhaps not.

I could concede on the mental health checks assuming we agree on the other things. After a little research on the cost of such a system I think it might impose a little too much on a private individual.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Why do you assume that I am mentally incompetent? Why does the government assume that I am a criminal? Innocent until PROVEN guilty.


Perhaps. perhaps not.

I could concede on the mental health checks assuming we agree on the other things. After a little research on the cost of such a system I think it might impose a little too much on a private individual.

No, mental health checks aren't something to be conceded on. A gun licence is a qualification and not the acquittal of a crime. You must prove that you're qualified, not that you're innocent.

[Neo Mitanni]

What it tells anyone who gives it any critical thought at all is that these brilliant researchers are the people Ben Franklin warned about. They would sacrifice freedom for security, and deserve neither.

"Injury prevention and public health" are interests that are far outweighed by preservation of individual liberty. The only place you will find an injury-free and completely healthy society is inside the Pearly Gates.

Yes, because that's totally what they're trying to accomplish, and injury-free and completely healthy society. If you can't actually debate on the subject of what they do, then don't. Don't just make it up and pretend like you're talking about reality.

I could give you the same advice. I could also advise you to actually read what I wrote before responding. The first statement is the key to the entire reply. Injury prevention and public health are NOT the most important things at stake. Individual liberty, and in particular the right to bear arms secured (note: secured, not granted) by the Second Amendment, is of transcendent importance and cannot be trumped by appeal to medical statistics.

And while we're "talking about reality", the millions of gun owners in this country are not about to surrender their arms, regardless of what the current regime, its lackeys in the DLM, and its misguided supporters in public office and elsewhere dream to the contrary. Now that's keepin' it real.

[Forunorimala]

I give a lot of respect for that woman to be protecting her children even if it means that she has to kill a person to make sure that her children are safe. This is what makes the third amendment in our constitution so powerful ladies and gentlemen.

[Forunorimala]

I give a lot of respect for that woman to be protecting her children even if it means that she has to kill a person to make sure that her children are safe. This is what makes the third amendment in our constitution so powerful ladies and gentlemen.

[Jocabia]

Yes, because that's totally what they're trying to accomplish, and injury-free and completely healthy society. If you can't actually debate on the subject of what they do, then don't. Don't just make it up and pretend like you're talking about reality.

I could give you the same advice. I could also advise you to actually read what I wrote before responding. The first statement is the key to the entire reply. Injury prevention and public health are NOT the most important things at stake. Individual liberty, and in particular the right to bear arms secured (note: secured, not granted) by the Second Amendment, is of transcendent importance and cannot be trumped by appeal to medical statistics.

And while we're "talking about reality", the millions of gun owners in this country are not about to surrender their arms, regardless of what the current regime, its lackeys in the DLM, and its misguided supporters in public office and elsewhere dream to the contrary. Now that's keepin' it real.

We don't have to ignore injury prevention and health in the interest of freedom. There is a balance.

Do you recommend that we allow people to own nuclear weapons in the interest of freedom? I mean, what possible reason could we have to ban nuclear weapons that isn't based on injury prevention and health?

I do love how half the pro-gun people are talking about most guns are owned by law-abiding citizens and the other half are talking about how they're owned by a bunch of people one law away from treason and waging war on the United States. I think you're right. Clearly, gun owners are not law-abiding. They're planning to wage war on the United States. The United States should take this into account when making gun laws, just as you say.

[Emile Zola]

35,000 death in a country of 305 million isnt that many, and much less when its divided up.

What a bizarre and sociopath comment to make. One person dying from a preventable death is bad, 35,000 is just terrible. Go to Newtown and say to the parents that twenty children being massacred isn't that many in context to the country as a whole. This is a terrible comment and you should feel bad but I don't think you have the capacity to.

And if your accusing someone of ''editing'' their source, then how do we know you didnt edit yours? Care to explain?

I have answered this in a previous post. I had linked to government study on gun violence and not a blog/clip where the blogger clearly has made a conclusion before they have even started. If you can't tell the difference I can't help you. I only replied to your post because your first comment was so thoughtless.

[Neo Mitanni]

We don't have to ignore injury prevention and health in the interest of freedom. There is a balance.

Do you recommend that we allow people to own nuclear weapons in the interest of freedom? I mean, what possible reason could we have to ban nuclear weapons that isn't based on injury prevention and health?

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" in the sense of the 2nd Amendment. Nobody would use weapons of mass destruction to resist a tyrannical regime; such would be self-defeating to say the least. Nor are "injury prevention and health" the reasons for restricting their possession. The consequences of nuclear weapon use bear no resemblance whatever to accidental or negligent discharge, or criminal use, of a handgun, for example. They don't end with "injury". A silly and non-serious question.

I do love how half the pro-gun people are talking about most guns are owned by law-abiding citizens and the other half are talking about how they're owned by a bunch of people one law away from treason and waging war on the United States. I think you're right. Clearly, gun owners are not law-abiding. They're planning to wage war on the United States. The United States should take this into account when making gun laws, just as you say.

To that I offer the following response:

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

I give far more respect to George Washington's view on the matter than yours. Likewise to the views of others of the Founding Fathers on the same point. As for "treason", I'm sure you're familiar with Patrick Henry.