Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[Spreewerke]

1.Point at head.
2.Shoot.

You don't shoot much, do you?

[Isolated China]

For fuck's sake, why is everything dependent on a 200 year old document? Don't get me wrong, it was a major step forward in liberty, but that was over 200 years ago. We've moved on since then, and refusing to budge over a 200 year old right is plain strange. Take the Magna Carta, a document that guaranteed the rights of every man in the country. It's a great step forward in liberty, but as you can see from the link there's a part which stated 'Earls and Barons should only be fined by their peers'. That's a 13th century law, which no one would accept in a modern society. The 2nd Amendment is an 18th century law. This is the 21st century. We've moved on.

Democracy's been around since the Romans. Its like a couple thousand years old. Its the 21st Century. We need to seriously move on and become some sort of anarchy, amirite? /Sarcasm

[Tlaceceyaya]

For fuck's sake, why is everything dependent on a 200 year old document? Don't get me wrong, it was a major step forward in liberty, but that was over 200 years ago. We've moved on since then, and refusing to budge over a 200 year old right is plain strange. Take the Magna Carta, a document that guaranteed the rights of every man in the country. It's a great step forward in liberty, but as you can see from the link there's a part which stated 'Earls and Barons should only be fined by their peers'. That's a 13th century law, which no one would accept in a modern society. The 2nd Amendment is an 18th century law. This is the 21st century. We've moved on.

Democracy's been around since the Romans. Its like a couple thousand years old. Its the 21st Century. We need to seriously move on and become some sort of anarchy, amirite? /Sarcasm

Actually, since the greeks. And our democracy is far different from theirs.

[Isolated China]

Actually, since the greeks. And our democracy is far different from theirs.

I know. I was being sarcastic and showing him how just because something's old doesn't mean its inherently stupid.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Actually, since the greeks. And our democracy is far different from theirs.

I know. I was being sarcastic and showing him how just because something's old doesn't mean its inherently stupid.

And in doing so, you missed his entire point.

[Isolated China]

I know. I was being sarcastic and showing him how just because something's old doesn't mean its inherently stupid.

And in doing so, you missed his entire point.

How so? He made the comment of saying that since the Constitution was made in the 18th century, we should move on because we're in the 21st century. I made the sarcastic comment of saying that since democracy's been around a lot longer than the Constitution, it's obviously old and outdated to fit a society, and that we should all live in anarchy.

Fairly sure I got everything.

[Tlaceceyaya]

And in doing so, you missed his entire point.

How so? He made the comment of saying that since the Constitution was made in the 18th century, we should move on because we're in the 21st century. I made the sarcastic comment of saying that since democracy's been around a lot longer than the Constitution, it's obviously old and outdated to fit a society, and that we should all live in anarchy.

Fairly sure I got everything.

He's justifying his points by saying that we have moved on. That justifying something by saying "It's in this old book" is bad.

[Jocabia]

What? Panicked people act differently than people who are prepared for the situation and unafraid? Who knew? It's almost like I said specifically that. I wasn't faulting her. I was merely stating that if she'd been more calm she would have saved a bullet or two and gotten the same outcome. It doesn't make her a murderer or attempted murderer (two words I never used to describe her). It just makes it a mistake.

"What? Panicked people act differently than people who are prepared for the situation and unafraid? Who knew?" Yep.They sure do.And also 5 to 10 minutes+ faster.
*Oh and note that policemen sure are trained but that doesn't mean they are unafraid at all.It's like saying that a soldier isn't going to ask himself the question of whether or not he'll ever get back from war simply becaue he is trained or prepared.

Man, you really have trouble with context. The person who is unafraid is the shooter. That's why they have the advantage, as I said repeatedly. You claimed they didn't have that advantage. And now you're admitting it is an advantage. And, of course, it is.

[Lessnt]

People have a hard time accepting evil.
Evil is everywhere.

The more dangerous and greater evil can only be stopped by threatening them with a violent death or by killing them.

The mother saved her children from a potentially violent end at someone who does not wish to go to prison.

[Lessnt]

"What? Panicked people act differently than people who are prepared for the situation and unafraid? Who knew?" Yep.They sure do.And also 5 to 10 minutes+ faster.
*Oh and note that policemen sure are trained but that doesn't mean they are unafraid at all.It's like saying that a soldier isn't going to ask himself the question of whether or not he'll ever get back from war simply becaue he is trained or prepared.

Man, you really have trouble with context. The person who is unafraid is the shooter. That's why they have the advantage, as I said repeatedly. You claimed they didn't have that advantage. And now you're admitting it is an advantage. And, of course, it is.

The mother was willing to die to defend her children and her mentality was that she had to do something.
I am sure the chemicals in her brain helped her reach a trance for the survival of her children, where her death matters little if her children continue to live.

[Jocabia]

He didn't beg her to stop? Or he was no longer a danger? He laid on the floor when she was out of bullets (1). She was in more danger then than if she'd stopped one bullet shy (2). But he still laid on the floor on his face and remained there. There is no indication that one less bullet fired would have made him any less inclined to follow her commands and the fact that he begged her to stop is evidence that he was ready to follow her commands, thus no longer a danger (3). The goal of using a firearm, if you actually give even a little shit about human life, is to use the minimal amount of force necessary (4). In her case, with what she knew, I believe it's unreasonable to expect her to not have fired. It is not, however, unfair to suggest she could have and probably should have fired less, given what she knew, and still gotten the desired outcome, which was the safety of her children and herself (5).

Now say "bullshit" again and I will be properly and truly whipped (6).

1) Now you're getting things right. At no point was the robber begging her to stop shooting before she did stop shooting. That was bullshit.

Yes, he did. Every single time I've addressed this, I've said the same thing, that he begged her to stop but she continued to fire. I hold to that. Why? Because I am actually talking about what happened instead of just making things up.

http://newsone.com/2129428/mothers-hero ... ed-by-nra/

According to the woman who shot him, what's bullshit is your knowledge of what happened.

Melinda Herman told police she started shooting the man when he opened the door to the crawl space. The man pleaded with her to stop, but she kept firing until she had emptied her rounds, she told police.

It's generally a good idea to find out what happened and then speak on what happened. Or do you have some special knowledge of this incident that Melinda Herman does not have? Were you hiding in the corner watching the events unfold?

2) No, she really wasn't. You're correct, at that point she didn't have any more rounds to use in case he presented a threat once again, but the likelihood of that was decreased because of her use of all the rounds.

You are again making up evidence. You don't know this. There is no evidence for this. There is evidence, the fact that he begged her to stop, that if she'd stopped sooner he would have been equally willing to adhere to her commands which is what ultimately kept her safe. You don't get to make up facts because you want to.

3) You're right, which is why she didn't reload the gun and shoot him again. He was no longer a threat.

And according to her, he stopped being a threat before she stopped firing. The only way she would have been able to reload was if he was no longer a threat.

4) The fact that you say this suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. Firearms, by their nature, aren't a 'minimal force' instrument. This is why police have tasers and pepper spray. The point of using the firearm is that it has immediate effect, multiple uses before requiring a reload of some kind (unlike tasers), and the highest likelihood of actually stopping the person it is being used on before they can do something further (alongside of its relative ease of use when compared to other options). Guns aren't magical criminal stopping wands, and if someone gives two shits about human life they will realize this.

The fact that you say this shows you don't know what you're talking about. They are, in fact, an instrument that exists in a spectrum of force like every other level of force. There are always lower levels of force, unless you use no force whatsoever. Tasers are more force than poking someone in the chest or grabbing them. Guns are more force than tasers. Shooting someone in the foot is less force than shooting them in the head (assuming you do either of those intentionally). And, as you pointed out in your earlier assertion, reloading and emptying another clip in him would have been more force than emptying one clip into him. And two bullets is less force than six bullets.

And, most laws, require you not to exert excessive force. If she'd reloaded and shot another clip into him, she'd most likely be facing charges.

5) Yes, it is. In hindsight, you're right, it seems from the guy's reaction that he would have been stopped by less force. What you are apparently failing to realize is the woman had no way of gauging that immediately. Being hit didn't blow this guy back through some glass and leave him writhing on the floor. In fact, in all likelihood he was standing until after she had emptied the cylinder (but that is pure conjecture based solely on handgun caliber, so feel free to discount it). This guy, for all she knew, WASN'T going to give up just from one, two, three, four, five, or possibly even six rounds. She had six rounds. The likelihood of his being a threat decreases with each round she fires. Seeing as she didn't have time to run through statistics of how many rounds gives a significant margin of accomplishing the goal of stopping the threat, she went with the quickest, dirtiest method of making sure that likelihood was as high as it could be. Firing all six rounds.

Yes, I get that you are ignorant of the facts. However, now that I've linked you to the woman's own telling of the story, you can see that she did have a way to guage this. He was pleading, according to her, and she kept firing. And as a result, she ended up with an empty handgun. It was a mistake on her part, and if she'd taken the evidence that he was compliant, his pleading, she'd have ended up with a gun that was still loaded and could do more than be waved around like a magic criminal stopping wand, should the need arise.

And if you think emptying your clip leaves you as safe as is possible, then you clearly haven't been trained well. But, you don't think this, as you pointed out earlier, being caught with an empty clip was a bad thing. It wasn't the simplest, the dirtiest, or the best. It was a mistake made by someone who was less than prepared for what happened.

6) Bullshit.

Given your proven ignorance of this incident, I'll take that as a badge of honor. Thanks for pinning it on me a second time.

[Jocabia]

Man, you really have trouble with context. The person who is unafraid is the shooter. That's why they have the advantage, as I said repeatedly. You claimed they didn't have that advantage. And now you're admitting it is an advantage. And, of course, it is.

The mother was willing to die to defend her children and her mentality was that she had to do something.
I am sure the chemicals in her brain helped her reach a trance for the survival of her children, where her death matters little if her children continue to live.

Uh, we were referencing Aurora and those types of shooting. This guy was a burglar, not a crazy man with an assault weapon planning a slaughter.

This event was something quite different.

[Jocabia]

It varies on the situation. In the case of Aurora, CO, everyone but the shooter was in a crowd, but shooting through a crowd is just as dangerous.

In which case, you'd not have shot him in the face as you claimed originally. Because there were lots of people within the relevant distance. Not to mention the fact, that they don't say it like that. It's obviously relevant how many people are between you and him.

I never assumed the criminal is always trained. I said they have the advantage, because these kinds of shootings are planned. They are. The Aurora shooting was thoroughly planned and pretty well executed. Probably because no ITG's were available to fire their magic civilian-missing bullets.

Nice.I really liked that.Calling me an Internet Tough Guy.What a mature thing to do.

Well guess what I wasn't even reffering to myself in that situation.It may have been any regular Joe.You do realize that a headshot really isn't that hard to pull off? Even with no training. Even for the average Joe. A Glock is really simple.Straightforward.Does its' job wonderfully.At a reasonable distance of course.Same as most other handguns out on the market today.

1.Point at head.
2.Shoot.

Now,I really really loved the Glock part.You must have heard some "gun-toting rednecks" talking about it and,like any self-respecting liberal/leftie (which you probably are) thought about using that in a pejorative way,like it's some sort of a shitty,cheap,"common among the rednecks" gun.
Oh well guess what.More news.Some basic gun knowledge.

The Glock family of pistols is actually one of the best there is.Of Austrian design and production,these guns are in service with countless (even elite) military and police forces around the globe.

Hmm.Gets you thinking,doesn't it? Bet those rednecks are on to something.Their tastes sure aren't that bad after all.

Or, perhaps, and try to wrap your head around this, I've actually fired a weapon or two in my time. Perhaps, and again, try to wrap your head around this, I was in the military, and while there I shot a lot of different types of weapons. Perhaps, and this is just spitballing, maybe I really enjoy shooting at ranges and I'm well-trained with a whole host of weapons. Heck, I bet it's possible that I was even required to learn how to disassemble and reassemble all sorts of weapons.

Nah, that's inconceivable.

I must have just googled "redneck weapon" and spouted off. There is certainly some evidence that some individuals in this thread are getting their information about guns and how to shoot solely from google.

No one with any significant amount of training and who has ever spoken to anyone who has actually had any experience with shooting in traumatic situations downplays the ease of shooting like you do. With paper targets, shooting accurately is not all that hard. Maybe, now this is just another hypothetical, just maybe, human beings don't stand perfectly still at a known distance away and make for such an easy target.

You know the best way to not prove your an ITG, google where the glock is made, pretend like a head shot on a moving target is child's play, and pretend like the moment a threat occurred by a man with tear gas, that your spider sense would kick in and you'd instantly neutralize him, without endangering and potentially injuring a number of other people. Yeah, that doesn't sound like an ITG at all.

[Spreewerke]

2) No, she really wasn't. You're correct, at that point she didn't have any more rounds to use in case he presented a threat once again, but the likelihood of that was decreased because of her use of all the rounds.

You are again making up evidence. You don't know this. There is no evidence for this. There is evidence, the fact that he begged her to stop, that if she'd stopped sooner he would have been equally willing to adhere to her commands which is what ultimately kept her safe. You don't get to make up facts because you want to.

4) The fact that you say this suggests you have no idea what you're talking about. Firearms, by their nature, aren't a 'minimal force' instrument. This is why police have tasers and pepper spray. The point of using the firearm is that it has immediate effect, multiple uses before requiring a reload of some kind (unlike tasers), and the highest likelihood of actually stopping the person it is being used on before they can do something further (alongside of its relative ease of use when compared to other options). Guns aren't magical criminal stopping wands, and if someone gives two shits about human life they will realize this.

[...]

And, most laws, require you not to exert excessive force. If she'd reloaded and shot another clip into him, she'd most likely be facing charges.

Almost. I believe it was stated earlier that she fired six ".38 rounds". ".38" is a revolver cartridge, and revolvers of that caliber typically have six-chambered cylinders. Therefore, emptying the entire cylinder would be expending all of her rounds, especially if she did not have a pocketful of spare ammunition and/or speed-loaders.

No "clip" to even enter the equation.

[Jocabia]

And, there is no question, that it was treason. Our government was formed with safeguards against the need for violence. Our founders recognized that violence could again be necessary at some time, but they certainly didn't suggest that we ignore legal channels in order to more quickly enter into war against the country they founded. Our founders gave you means to alter our government through peaceful means specifically to that end. If you choose to ignore them, you can claim you're on the side of right (you'll be wrong, but let's not quibble), but you certainly cannot claim that it's law-abiding or that it's not treasonous. And certainly, in the intentional effort to ignore the law and the legal and peaceful means by which you may rectify injury, and rather make an effort to abolish the very nation, you certainly can claim that it's out of love of yourself or out of love of the principles for which you fight, but it certainly cannot be claimed to be love for the nation you seek to destroy.

As far as who is NM, I suppose when entering a conversation, you don't actually pay attention to the thread of that conversation. That seems a pretty good recipe for saying things that are ignorant as to the topic, point and context of the conversation, as evidenced here.

You know what is treason? Trying to deny people basic rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Actually, no, that's not what treason is. Treason already has a definition. Now, if only I could remember what document defines treason. Eh, whatever document that is, I'm sure it's much less reliable than the definition you're ascribing. Clearly, treason is not following anything stated in the Constitution word for literal word and any document that says otherwise needs to be ignored and rewritten.

[The De Danann Nation]

When she shot him, he fell to the floor. He begged her to stop but she kept shooting him until she emptied the rounds.
That's just wrong. I don't care if he broke into her house, you don't shoot someone begging for you to stop.

[Jocabia]

You are again making up evidence. You don't know this. There is no evidence for this. There is evidence, the fact that he begged her to stop, that if she'd stopped sooner he would have been equally willing to adhere to her commands which is what ultimately kept her safe. You don't get to make up facts because you want to.

[...]

And, most laws, require you not to exert excessive force. If she'd reloaded and shot another clip into him, she'd most likely be facing charges.

Almost. I believe it was stated earlier that she fired six ".38 rounds". ".38" is a revolver cartridge, and revolvers of that caliber typically have six-chambered cylinders. Therefore, emptying the entire cylinder would be expending all of her rounds, especially if she did not have a pocketful of spare ammunition and/or speed-loaders.

No "clip" to even enter the equation.

I misstated. I stand corrected. Although, emptying the entire cylinder is much less catchy.

EDIT: I should point out since we're being fairly corrected, I"m kind of sitting and almost laying corrected.

[Jocabia]

1.Point at head.
2.Shoot.

You don't shoot much, do you?

Shhhh... now don't go bursting that web of mystique he's weaving. Clearly, it's really that simple. I don't know why we even bother training people on how to shoot. It's just as easy as point and shoot and only the thing you want to get hit gets hit. Certainly no evidence to the contrary exists.

[Spreewerke]

When speed-firing a .22LR six-shot revolver, I am able to empty the cylinder in about 1.8 to 2.0 seconds. If I am focusing on just pulling the trigger as fast as I can, by the time, "Don't shoot!" registers in my mind, the gun is already empty.

Also some food for thought as, in super close-quarters and in a state of, well, panic, I imagine she was just wanting to get all of those rounds out of the weapon as soon as she could. Six shots firing in, "Oh shi-!" mode does not require a lot of time. It is not at all accurate, either, but at very close range, it will work. It would also explain why one shot apparently missed its mark at such a short distance.
Almost. I believe it was stated earlier that she fired six ".38 rounds". ".38" is a revolver cartridge, and revolvers of that caliber typically have six-chambered cylinders. Therefore, emptying the entire cylinder would be expending all of her rounds, especially if she did not have a pocketful of spare ammunition and/or speed-loaders.

No "clip" to even enter the equation.

I misstated. I stand corrected. Although, emptying the entire cylinder is much less catchy.

[Spreewerke]

Almost. I believe it was stated earlier that she fired six ".38 rounds". ".38" is a revolver cartridge, and revolvers of that caliber typically have six-chambered cylinders. Therefore, emptying the entire cylinder would be expending all of her rounds, especially if she did not have a pocketful of spare ammunition and/or speed-loaders.

No "clip" to even enter the equation.

I misstated. I stand corrected. Although, emptying the entire cylinder is much less catchy.

When speed-firing a .22LR six-shot revolver, I am able to empty the cylinder in about 1.8 to 2.0 seconds. If I am focusing on just pulling the trigger as fast as I can, by the time, "Don't shoot!" registers in my mind, the gun is already empty.

Also some food for thought as, in super close-quarters and in a state of, well, panic, I imagine she was just wanting to get all of those rounds out of the weapon as soon as she could. Six shots firing in, "Oh shi-!" mode does not require a lot of time. It is not at all accurate, either, but at very close range, it will work. It would also explain why one shot apparently missed its mark at such a short distance.


EDIT TO ADD: I fudged the quotes originally and had to edit this post. Not sure if I corrected the format properly, so bear-with.

[Jocabia]

I misstated. I stand corrected. Although, emptying the entire cylinder is much less catchy.

I did not miss your point that she'd effectively disarmed herself, for the record. I don't think this is all that surprising given her level of experience, however.

EDIT: Ah, you edited. Yes, I don't think it's all that surprising that she did what she did. It's a sign that's she's not particularly well-prepared for this kind of situation. Most people aren't (which is why I object strenuously to the suggestion that people can easily prepare for such situations). She made a mistake a lot of people probably would have made, but my point was that she clearly could have used less force than she did simply with the information she had at the time. I don't particularly blame her, but I would label a mistake all the same. A mistake that left her unarmed and having used more force than necessary.

What some people don't take into account is that what she went through was traumatic. He deserved it isn't going to make her feel better about it necessarily. Most people would continuously relive this event. She already realize that he was begging her to stop. She's going to realize at some point that she probably should have. And she's going to have to process that.

Avoiding killing someone isn't just to protect the person you're shooting at. It's to protect you as well. Physical damage isn't the only type of damage. Controlling your level of force gives you less room to second guess yourself. This woman would have been better off if she'd found a way to chase of this burglar without shooting and possibly (we don't know yet) killing him. She didn't find a way and she did what she felt she had to do. Now she has to live with that decision, a task I do not envy her for.

Note: This isn't directed at you so much as a response inspired by what you said.

[Spreewerke]

I did not miss your point that she'd effectively disarmed herself, for the record. I don't think this is all that surprising given her level of experience, however.

I understand. However, I have seen it in this thread numerous times that, "six shots is so many, though! Obviously a killer." Fact-of-the-matter is, when you're just focused on emptying it, it really isn't that time-consuming of a task. Sorry if I'm making you look like my "target" for this small discussion, but I figured addressing your post would be easiest at this time. Anyway, hopefully it can take the excuse of, "Only a murderer would fire that many times" out of some responses as it most likely happened too quickly for her to even begin registering what he was saying until she had emptied the revolver, anyway.

[Paddy O Fernature]

When she shot him, he fell to the floor. He begged her to stop but she kept shooting him until she emptied the rounds.
That's just wrong. I don't care if he broke into her house, you don't shoot someone begging for you to stop.

I suggest you actually read the story, before commenting further.

[Jocabia]

I did not miss your point that she'd effectively disarmed herself, for the record. I don't think this is all that surprising given her level of experience, however.

I understand. However, I have seen it in this thread numerous times that, "six shots is so many, though! Obviously a killer." Fact-of-the-matter is, when you're just focused on emptying it, it really isn't that time-consuming of a task. Sorry if I'm making you look like my "target" for this small discussion, but I figured addressing your post would be easiest at this time. Anyway, hopefully it can take the excuse of, "Only a murderer would fire that many times" out of some responses as it most likely happened too quickly for her to even begin registering what he was saying until she had emptied the revolver, anyway.

Ditto. I was just pointing out that some of my responses are inspired by what you say, but not directed at you.

I think you're aware that I do not think this woman is a murderer. She was panicked. People make mistakes in a panic. I do feel like her husband handled the situation pretty well, from what I can tell.

[Jocabia]

When she shot him, he fell to the floor. He begged her to stop but she kept shooting him until she emptied the rounds.
That's just wrong. I don't care if he broke into her house, you don't shoot someone begging for you to stop.

I suggest you actually read the story, before commenting further.

Actually, that's specifically what she said occurred. I disagree with that posters opinion, but the relevant bit of his facts, the part where he was begging her to stop, matches her description.