Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves children

[The Taryegeans]

Why is this relevant? It's not her goddamn problem. His right to safety and protection under the law was forfeited the second he got a crowbar and broke in. She had every right to act the way she did.

That is false. Their rights are not voided, even as criminals, before trial by jury or in the sight of clear and present danger.

She was in some pretty clear and present danger. Some asshole just busted her door open with a crowbar and was in her home with herself and her children present. Fuck him.

[Ceannairceach]

Stop that. What I obviously mean is that you cannot assume the positive or the negative preemptively. Going on the defense is perfectly natural, but shooting before figuring out intent most certainly is not.

When a complete stranger breaks into your house, preemptively assuming the negative is the more rational response. And it's not like she went hunting him through the house. She hid in the attic with her kids, he walked in on them, she reacted. I don't really find it an overreaction, or a failing on her part, than when suddenly put in a situation where she's trapped with her children by a stranger who had broken into her house, that her first reaction wasn't, "Good afternoon sir, is there something I can help you with?"

No, it isn't. Not making assumptions when handling a deadly weapon is the only rational response. End of.

A proper reaction would have been to declare the fact that she was armed, and then to either demand that he leave or to demand that he declare his reasoning for invading her home.

[Insane Kidney Mentality]

Which could have been a search for those he assumed to be in danger. Let's face it; She overreacted, and a man who could have been as low as a murderer or as high as a goody-two-shoes was heavily injured because of it.

Seriously though, she couldn't just point the gun at him and ask what he was doing? Does she think he's a ninja who can dodge bullets and grab the gun out of her hand or something?

If a stranger breaks down your door and rumages through your house without concent, I'm pretty sure I'd already have an idea of what he is doing.

[Ceannairceach]

That is false. Their rights are not voided, even as criminals, before trial by jury or in the sight of clear and present danger.

She was in some pretty clear and present danger. Some asshole just busted her door open with a crowbar and was in her home with herself and her children present. Fuck him.

He was not armed with a deadly weapon unless he maintained his use of the crowbar, nor was his intent clear. There was no danger that was clear.

[NPCA]

By pointing gun at them and telling them "get out".

Did the man have a gun?

No, but did the woman have every right to defend herself? yes.

[Dilange]

Honestly, I would love to see the results of a study in this manner.

Select a major cross section of the world's population.

Place in a room of a simulated home with two simulated children, and a table with the following:
1 Tactical Knife (Simulated)
1 Baseball Bat (aka Wiffle Ball for our sim)
1 Tactical Fake Pistol

When an intruder of unknown number, strength or intention starts banging at the door and gets in, how many would a) pick up nothing and shout "Go away!", b) pick up the bat, c) pick up the knife, knowing it would do more damage to one or more bad guys than the bat, or d) pick up the gun knowing that if they even saw a limb or body part big enough to hit, it would be hit definitively and fire as many shots as needed to remove the threat?

I say, anyone in the A B or C category is likely to die in the next violent crime they are involved in when they should defend themselves and their family without mercy to the criminal(s).

Back in reality...

[NPCA]

Blind person much?

That woman had every right to defend herself from an intruder from breaking into her house. If she didn't have a gun, she and her children would've been possibly hurt.

Would have been possible hurt. Or they wouldn't have. Your speculation is no more reliable than anyone else's.

[Sailsia]

This should be good. Guns: "saving lives" by punching people full of holes!

In self defense....

He wasn't attacking her...

[Ceannairceach]

Did the man have a gun?

No, but did the woman have every right to defend herself? yes.

Not with deadly force when his intent was not known.

[Dilange]

Did the man have a gun?

No, but did the woman have every right to defend herself? yes.

And at the sight of a gun pointed at them, most people have the rational thought to run. Are you not one of these people?

[The Taryegeans]

That's not what she did. She knew of his intent, he broke into the house with a crowbar and was going through her belongings, Hell, she tried to avoid confrontation, she hid when she had every legal right to kill him the moment he broke the door down.

Why would she WANT to though, when she could have just shouted "I have a gun" and he would have more than likely never of broken down the door to begin with.

"Most likely* isn't good enough when it comes to my safety and the safety of my family, and it shouldn't be for her safety and her children's either.

[The House of Isaac]

Seriously though, she couldn't just point the gun at him and ask what he was doing? Does she think he's a ninja who can dodge bullets and grab the gun out of her hand or something?

If a stranger breaks down your door and rumages through your house without concent, I'm pretty sure I'd already have an idea of what he is doing.

There are many possiblities to what he is doing, and because of the Chaos Theory, you cannot be sure.

[NPCA]

In self defense....

He wasn't attacking her...

I still consider it self-defense. I wouldn't want someone to rob my house.

[New Nassrau]

i think we have the right to shoot someone if they're illegally on our property...

[Myrensis]

Which could have been a search for those he assumed to be in danger. Let's face it; She overreacted, and a man who could have been as low as a murderer or as high as a goody-two-shoes was heavily injured because of it.

Assumed to be in danger based on what?

Again, the entire premise that him breaking in shouldn't immediately be viewed in a negative light is that "They're probably all being raped and murdered as we speak!!" is a reasonable assumption to make when you knock on somebody's door and they don't answer. Hint: It isn't. The reasonable assumption is A.They aren't home, or B.They don't want to talk to you.

[The House of Isaac]

Why would she WANT to though, when she could have just shouted "I have a gun" and he would have more than likely never of broken down the door to begin with.

"Most likely* isn't good enough when it comes to my safety and the safety of my family, and it shouldn't be for her safety and her children's either.

Think with reason, not emotion. Most likely is fine for me, plus most people value their self-preservation very highly.

[Insane Kidney Mentality]

When a complete stranger breaks into your house, preemptively assuming the negative is the more rational response. And it's not like she went hunting him through the house. She hid in the attic with her kids, he walked in on them, she reacted. I don't really find it an overreaction, or a failing on her part, than when suddenly put in a situation where she's trapped with her children by a stranger who had broken into her house, that her first reaction wasn't, "Good afternoon sir, is there something I can help you with?"

No, it isn't. Not making assumptions when handling a deadly weapon is the only rational response. End of.

A proper reaction would have been to declare the fact that she was armed, and then to either demand that he leave or to demand that he declare his reasoning for invading her home.

What would you do? Declare you were armed?

If anything, you just declared you were armed and you gave away your position in the house by shouting 'I'm armed'. There is no possibility that the intruder is going to leave your house, and if anything, you've just lost the advantage of surprise if he does decide to beat your brains in with that crowbar of his.

[Sailsia]

Why would she WANT to though, when she could have just shouted "I have a gun" and he would have more than likely never of broken down the door to begin with.

"Most likely* isn't good enough when it comes to my safety and the safety of my family, and it shouldn't be for her safety and her children's either.

Except it is good enough.

[The Taryegeans]

She was in some pretty clear and present danger. Some asshole just busted her door open with a crowbar and was in her home with herself and her children present. Fuck him.

He was not armed with a deadly weapon unless he maintained his use of the crowbar, nor was his intent clear. There was no danger that was clear.

He broke into her home, and under the law her use of deadly force against him was justified. Clear and present danger of some stranger forcing his way into her home. She shouldn't have to guess his intent to harm her, and sure as hell should have the right to protect her residence and herself and her children.

[Sailsia]

He wasn't attacking her...

I still consider it self-defense. I wouldn't want someone to rob my house.

I wouldn't want someone to punch me in the face but I'm not going to shoot them if they did so.

[Dilange]

No, it isn't. Not making assumptions when handling a deadly weapon is the only rational response. End of.

A proper reaction would have been to declare the fact that she was armed, and then to either demand that he leave or to demand that he declare his reasoning for invading her home.

What would you do? Declare you were armed?

If anything, you just declared you were armed and you gave away your position in the house by shouting 'I'm armed'. There is no possibility that the intruder is going to leave your house, and if anything, you've just lost the advantage of surprise if he does decide to beat your brains in with that crowbar of his.

Because in reality melee weapons always beat firearms?

[The House of Isaac]

No, it isn't. Not making assumptions when handling a deadly weapon is the only rational response. End of.

A proper reaction would have been to declare the fact that she was armed, and then to either demand that he leave or to demand that he declare his reasoning for invading her home.

What would you do? Declare you were armed?

If anything, you just declared you were armed and you gave away your position in the house by shouting 'I'm armed'. There is no possibility that the intruder is going to leave your house, and if anything, you've just lost the advantage of surprise if he does decide to beat your brains in with that crowbar of his.

People have self-preservation. You obviously, cannot see this.

[Torsiedelle]

Who cares if he wanted to hurt them or not? He broke into a private home. Legally, she had the right to shoot him.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Why would she WANT to though, when she could have just shouted "I have a gun" and he would have more than likely never of broken down the door to begin with.

"Most likely* isn't good enough when it comes to my safety and the safety of my family, and it shouldn't be for her safety and her children's either.

There is a possibility that a B-52 will drop a load of 1,000 pound bombs on your house tomorrow. Should you have the right to acquire anti-aircraft guns to defend against this, y/n?

[The House of Isaac]

Who cares if he wanted to hurt them or not? He broke into a private home. Legally, she had the right to shoot him.

...if the intruder posed a significant threat.