Crazy Fucker Tries To Break In And Gets Blasted

We look to these laws for our answer.
Click to expand...

No we don't. Bail out CEO's got millions for running their companies into the ground. Hardly righteous!

was she protecting herself? It's not clear to me.
Click to expand...

That is the question you are asking. But that is not what was at hand here. What was at hand was the woman felt threatened and stopped the thread.

Bottom line, if you don't want to get hurt, don't corner an animal. Whatever your intentions are, someone will get hurt.

P.S. If you do own a couple of guns, I strongly suggest you go get a course in using them. When you say that you would 'tell the person breaking into your house that you have a gun' or you would 'shoot to injure' you are clearly ignorant of how to use it. You are right, guns are dangerous; in your hands; in the hands of people who don't know what it is for, or how to use it. Guns = deadly force. Want to stop someone with non-deadly force? Get a tazer or peper spray and stop acting like a big guy with a gun.
 


greenleaves said:
Bottom line, if you don't want to get hurt, don't corner an animal.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You're playing Russian Roulette with your life the minute you trespass and break into somebody's home. What this comes down to is accepting personal responsibility for your actions; break into somebody's house and you can expect to get fucking blasted with a shotgun. Case closed.

EDIT: BTW, there's absolutely no question of 'courts' or any of this garbage. The sheriff, police, and entire state fully support her. Everyone knows it was self-defense. Nobody's even thinking of an investigation. The only people talking about legal action are the bizarre ideologues that emerged to smear this patriotic, courageous woman.
 
Rusky said:
^^^
You ever heard of common sense.
The law set OJ Simpson free. Smarty pants.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim the criminal justice system was unerring.

Smarty pants.

Rusky said:
If that was your grandma on the phone. Would you tell her to put the gun down, gather and process the facts, ask the men what his intentions are, maybe even call the a lawyer for some legal advise?
Click to expand...

The first thing that would just naturally spring from my tongue would be, "What does he want?".

She would be like "I don't know".

I would say "Can you run out of your back (or whatever) door?... "

Hopefully, that's as far I as it needs to go to get her to safety.

Now, if she can't escape... well... this woman isn't super elderly (50s) and she can fucking shoot a shotgun, let's quit giving this woman no credit. If she somehow sees that this man has no gun then she can for sure as shit muster up the courage to ask "What the hell do you want!?". (and apparently he didn't have a gun)

I just hate not knowing what this guy's intentions were.

Regardless, this woman was scared and did what she felt she had to do. I hope the courts agree with her too...I'm just saying...it isn't 100% clear.

I probably was just arguing for the sake of arguing, but I hate fucking trumpet blasts and black and white thinking.
 
Props to the woman for not letting herself become another victim. The thing a lot of people fail to realize is that they have this false sense of security. They've never been in a life-n-death situation like this, and they don't know how critical just a few seconds can be.

Do you really think your call to 911 is going to bring in the cavalry just in time when someone is trying to bust into your home? You don't know the intentions of the intruder and natural LAW dictates that all potential threats must be neutralized asap.

That means no warning shots, no "hey, I got a gun" BS. If you don't shoot first, you may never have another chance to shoot again. And yes, you aim for the chest (or head if you are feeling lucky and don't mind making a mess). You do not shoot them in the arm or leg because if they are armed they can still shoot back...and if they are high they probably won't feel pain so they can continue coming after you.

Re: Anti-gun laws...they are pure unconstitutional garbage. I can GUARANTEE you that the vast majority of guns used in crimes were acquired using some illegal means - in other words, the criminals will arm themselves regardless of the laws. Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens who purchase guns for protection, hunting and/or as collections.
 
greenleaves said:
P.S. If you do own a couple of guns, I strongly suggest you go get a course in using them. When you say that you would 'tell the person breaking into your house that you have a gun' or you would 'shoot to injure' you are clearly ignorant of how to use it. You are right, guns are dangerous; in your hands; in the hands of people who don't know what it is for, or how to use it. Guns = deadly force. Want to stop someone with non-deadly force? Get a tazer or peper spray and stop acting like a big guy with a gun.
Click to expand...

I like to shoot clay targets, period.

I'm simply saying that I'm not opposed to guns, I own some. (for the one's that simply think I'm toeing a line and not thinking on my own)

I didn't buy them for self-protection...

I know how to use one...you're talking about home invasion tactics and such (different story).

If I see that the guy has no gun...simply stating the fact that I do will probably make him think real hard about what he's doing.

For me, shooting to injure or immobilize is good enough for me. (was also good enough for the woman LEO that shot Hasan) I don't come to the table with, this motherfucker is dead. I come to the table with this motherfucker is going to get shot (if I need to).

------

hellblazer said:
break into somebody's house and you can expect to get fucking blasted with a shotgun. Case closed.
Click to expand...

BLACK and WHITE thinking.

Does this man actually present a threat to my life? I'm not yet 100% sure. Shades of grey. (Where the courts/thinking people look.)

--------

Gung-ho America. ::facepalm::
 
You guys are kind of ridiculous. An unidentified dude broke in to this old ladies property. Maybe he did just want to use the phone. She had no idea. She had no way of knowing.

I wouldn't have shot until I knew I was at risk, but I don't blame her for a second for shooting. He entered her house. Put yourself in her shoes and actually think about how fucking terrifying that would be.
 
I didn't hear the guy on the 911 call yelling help or is anyone home or anything, although it's possible he did. did neither he nor his sister have a cell?

A friend of mines grandma lived alone in an old farmhouse in Southern Illinois Southwest of St Louis. Her house was a good third to half mile from the road. When I met her she was in her 80s and she ket a loaded shotgun in her living room. My friend said whenever he was going down he was sure to call first, especially at night. He said she would shoot towards, but not directly at suspicious cars or people. I'm have no doubt that if she felt threatened she would have done the same thing. It would have probably taken 15-30 minutes for a cop to get there if she needed one.
 
Refrozen said:
I wouldn't have shot until I knew I was at risk, but I don't blame her for a second for shooting. He entered her house. Put yourself in her shoes and actually think about how fucking terrifying that would be.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Personally, I wouldn't have shot till I knew I was at risk.

I can't totally blame her for shooting the man, however, like you said. (because of her state of mind.)

Regardless of how terrified she was, it doesn't affect if her ACTUAL LIFE was in danger or not. The courts and law will try and determine if her actual life was in danger.

If the courts, for example, find that he was just looking for help (probably not the case though) then her life WAS NOT in jeopardy. She would NOT have been justified in killing him.

However, due to her state of mind (and no one can blame her for this)... I think she'll get off scott free. Hopefully.
 
UnripeArbiter said:
BLACK and WHITE thinking.

Does this man actually present a threat to my life? I'm not yet 100% sure. Shades of grey. (Where the courts/thinking people look.)

--------

Gung-ho America. ::facepalm::
Click to expand...

Yeah, you be all introspective about the situation and wonder what the deeper meaning is. If you don't think someone trying to break into your home is a threat you have really been living under a rock for too long. It's not normal or natural to think like that, especially in THAT kind of situation.

Oh and America's militant nature has served it well, judging by the fact that it is one of the most powerful nations in the world and continues to be...the USA was built upon greed and war...or did you miss that bit of history?

Refrozen said:
You guys are kind of ridiculous. An unidentified dude broke in to this old ladies property. Maybe he did just want to use the phone. She had no idea. She had no way of knowing.

I wouldn't have shot until I knew I was at risk, but I don't blame her for a second for shooting. He entered her house. Put yourself in her shoes and actually think about how fucking terrifying that would be.
Click to expand...

LOLWTF

You don't bust down the door to someone's house if you just want to use the phone. That is a completely illogical thought process...something is wrong with you. You would knock on the front door and wait for someone to answer. All you idiots who think you're going to have time to ponder the situation for hours before deciding to act are ideal candidates for the darwin award.

Anyone who doesn't have their head shoved too far up their ass knows that if you have any inclination of self-preservation you will take the fucker out. You can deal with the technical analysis of the situation when the threat is eliminated..
 
UnripeArbiter said:

If the courts find that he was just looking for help, then she would NOT have been justified in killing him.
Click to expand...


Are you really too fucking stupid to understand the concept of defending one's property?

It doesn't matter if this dude had cancer, his sister was giving birth, they'd just won the lottery, he was starving, aliens were invading, WHATEVER.

The minute he smashed into this woman's house, she was justified in killing him.

Just stop with this lunacy. For your own sake. You're embarrassing yourself talking about fucking courts.

Here's what the sheriff himself said:

“This was nothing more than a home invasion and Mrs. Jackson was defending herself.”
 
hellblazer said:


Are you really too fucking stupid to understand the concept of defending one's property?

It doesn't matter if this dude had cancer, his sister was giving birth, they'd just won the lottery, he was starving, aliens were invading, WHATEVER.

The minute he smashed into this woman's house, she was justified in killing him.

Just stop with this lunacy. For your own sake. You're embarrassing yourself talking about fucking courts.

Here's what the sheriff himself said:

“This was nothing more than a home invasion and Mrs. Jackson was defending herself.”
Click to expand...

::after wiki::

You're actually 100% correct.

In "Castle Doctrine Law", (it's different in every state) I checked out Oklahoma and it's totally in play (your protection) when someone is forcibly entering your home.

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

So, because this man was unlawfully (obviously) and by force (with the banging, etc.) we can just presume (take it for granted) that he was doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act.

So we can throw all the maybe bullshit I was talking about aside; it doesn't matter.

This woman was 100% lawful in shooting and killing this man. This also explains why the dispatcher didn't ask what his intentions were. It doesn't matter since they are presumed to be unlawful anyway.

So for you Hellblazer, yes, in Oklahoma for sure, this is a BLACK and WHITE scenario. Trumpet blasts...yay. (Just because what she did was lawful and probably sanctioned in the Bible doesn't actually make it moral, however :) You don't have to believe what's in these parentheses, though. )

So, in short, defend your fucking castles gentlemen and fire away.

------

<ad hominem>

These threads, coming from you, just rub me the wrong way. :repuke:

You need to pull the die-hard, fearful, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded, hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, in a rut, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old line, orthodox, quiet, reactionary, redneck, right, right-wing, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, and unprogressive trumpet out of your fucking ass. The air coming from it smells like shit.

All synonyms for...ah yes...conservatives.

I'll stick to me and my buds who describe ourselves as advanced, avant-garde, broad, broad-minded, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, indulgent, intelligent, interested, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, permissive, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced , thank you! I know who my people are and others wonder how we can pull IM off. Ha!

^^ This must explain how I am able to agree with you at all. Reasonable, receptive, reformist, etc.

So, yes, your argument is correct, however I wish one time you were able to acknowledge or investigate the points made by others. Like that'll happen. :ugone2far:

</ad hominem>
 
I think she gave him more than a fair chance actually, I know a lot of people that would have shot just when he looked like he was trying to break in.

If I'm all alone and I don't know that there isn't more than one threat, I'm not making a fucking sound and if you break the glass you will have a hollow point in your chest.

I have had people come knock on my door at 4AM, and yes I've had my glock with me, and yes I did answer the door but there's a big difference between someone knocking at your front door, and some nut on your back porch trying to break in.

I'm guessing if you were looking through her eyes, and saw what she saw, you probably wouldn't be so quick to let him know your location.

I am very happy that Kansas allows me to protect my property. My fiance's best friend and her husband were killed on Thanksgiving in Wichita this year because of a home invasion so this hits pretty close to home right now.
 
DoldGigga said:
Yeah, you be all introspective about the situation and wonder what the deeper meaning is. If you don't think someone trying to break into your home is a threat you have really been living under a rock for too long. It's not normal or natural to think like that, especially in THAT kind of situation.

Oh and America's militant nature has served it well, judging by the fact that it is one of the most powerful nations in the world and continues to be...the USA was built upon greed and war...or did you miss that bit of history?
Click to expand...

USA was built upon greed and war...indeed I don't miss these things. Do you wish to bring these back in full force? Leaving these things where they belong, in history, is called p r o g r e s s.

All I was saying is that to be all gung-ho and have the attitude I'm going to kill any motherfucker that enters here is...maybe macho, but ridiculous.

I can make split second decisions about whether people are an immediate threat to my life or not and whether I should pull the trigger whether you think so or not. Do you think people lack this capacity to make quick (and hopefully just and accurate) decisions on the fly? I think police officers have to make this decision, don't they?

You want to cut out this decision making process and say "fire away!".

I'm saying...don't cut out that process. Police don't. You don't have to, either.

It may lead to unnecessarily killing of a human being (something that is of very little concern, apparently, especially if the person uses drugs).

Police don't cut out this decision making process precisely for this reason.

If someone is breaking into my home I can EASILY make a split second decision, if he doesn't have a gun, to just shoot him in the leg. Both legs for that matter. Incapacitated, no longer a threat, not going anywhere, and NOT DEAD; he'll also be able to face his actual just punishment...in prison.

I can't easily, in good conscious, kill this man though. The difference between you and I...and this woman.

Of course, the expectation that people will be able to make this split decision or not is moot. It doesn't matter, by law. So just fucking shoot away, regardless.

Congrats, dude.
 
I listened carefully again... at 1:07 or so it sounds like she says there's a gun on him...

Here's the vid again:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Z_2oU9B2o"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]


Fire the fuck away.
 
how about this for thought. If she doesn't respond to the door knocking how about the fucker go to another house to ask for help.

Shit, the law is the law. If someone breaks into your fucking house you have the right to protect your property and yourself. Since when does an 'emergency' make it okay to break and enter?

It really does make me sick that some of you fucktard left wing assholes are saying that this woman was in the wrong. If any of you were in the same situation you would have done the same exact thing.
 
Oh, and who tries to ask for help from the 'BACK' door. If the dude had any sense he would have gone to the front door and asked for help....
 
makethatgreen said:
how about this for thought. If she doesn't respond to the door knocking how about the fucker go to another house to ask for help.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was looking for help.

It was a just possibility before, maybe there weren't any other houses around, I dunno... it was just hypothetical and seemed plausible.

makethatgreen said:
Shit, the law is the law. If someone breaks into your fucking house you have the right to protect your property and yourself. Since when does an 'emergency' make it okay to break and enter?
Click to expand...

Yes you do.

It doesn't, but it would change the intent of the intruder.

makethatgreen said:
It really does make me sick that some of you fucktard left wing assholes are saying that this woman was in the wrong. If any of you were in the same situation you would have done the same exact thing.
Click to expand...

Never said she was absolutely wrong. Just making the point that she didn't even know what his intent was... (he had a gun apparently, so this statement is wrong now...thanks to no one for pointing that out except for me)

When it wasn't clear that this person had a gun I had a slight problem with it, you guys didn't and still don't. (if I knew he didn't have a gun I wouldn't have killed him, you guys would regardless.)

When I find out he apparently did have a gun, then I have no qualms.

So, whatever.
 
Fatbat said:
It doesn't matter what his motives were, he was trespassing and committing a home invasion.
Click to expand...

I now know this...before your comment.

It doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned.

But, if he was simply an un-armed, desperate and high man looking for help in the wrong way by breaking into this women's house...while legal to kill him would it be the right thing to do?

Same scenario ^ but armed... shoot him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom