Mother kills intruder breaking into her home while on phone with 911

[jonas33h]

I see you haven't been introduced to our resident Troll-King yet.
Hellboy here honestly believes that everyone on the planet that doesn't agree with insane far-to-the-right-of-Right wing ramblings is a "Liberal." Just go with it, we all do. :thumbsup:

Not a bad idea that. You read a lot of murder mysteries or something?

One thing that doesn't fit with your hypothosis though is the 3rd guy getting set up for 1st-degree murder... Surely he'd be singing like a choir when they put that charge on him.


Well one of the news pieces did say that the deceased left behind tons of expensive cancer-fighting medicines.



1. The bullet she fired while on the phone could have been into the sky... No way to trace that shit... And no, they can't tell exactly how many times a gun has been fired other than counting bullets or shells. So she would have had to dispose of one shell if she'd done that.

2. Only a complete retard could possibly believe the media's explanation for 9/11. Given the evidence it's hard for any rational, thinking human being to believe it was not a false-flag operation.

1. I'll give you that, but it still didn't happen.

So, video footage is consider irrational? messages from people on the planes to there loved ones is crap evidence? scientific evidence is retarded? I'm sorry what "facts" do you suggest. . . a michael moore doc? Charlie Sheen's explanation?

 

[jonas33h]

Or this is a really clever way of getting away with murder, picture this.

All three had been drinking or whatever, for some reason one of the guys get shot and dies instantly. 20 minutes pass by while they figure out what to do. She then phones the cops, tells the operator that someone is trying to break into the house and gets the go-ahead to defend herself, while the other guy is banging at the door and pretending to be the intruder. She lets off an empty round and tells the operator that she has shot the already dead visitor. Wallah. She gets away with it and becomes a hero. It took 20 minutes to break into the house... I don't believe it!

There is something clearly wrong with this picture. Who would try to murder a young mother who has a young baby and has just lost her husband to cancer the previous week. Where's the motivation to commit such a sad act?

rape? boredom? do people always have a reason to commit crimes? theft? TV, computer jewelry, money possibly, furniture, collectibles, just about anything in a house worth stealing maybe ?

 

[buxtonlove]

So, did the US government just kill all the people on the air planes?

No, the terrorists did. But who are the terrorists?

Did all the people that called from the planes to tell there loved ones that they were going to die not really exist?

Of course they existed.

Are scientists really less credible than a gay web master?

Um.... I don't know, maybe?

Did people who worked through out the night/day at the world trade not notice people strapping bombs throughout the whole building.

I don't know, you would need to ask those people. But no, there was no bombs, Freyon was found on the steel structers at ground zero however.

You have major wholes in your stupid theory. just sayin' but to each there own

Do I?

Okay then, have a good one.


Just so you know. When 9/11 happened I was like you, pissed off with Osama, but there were so many holes in the credible theory that I decided to delve a bit deeper. I looked into some things and found some information that made me think twice. There's no crime in finding information, I suggest you try it.

 

[buxtonlove]

rape? boredom? do people always have a reason to commit crimes? theft? TV, computer jewelry, money possibly, furniture, collectibles, just about anything in a house worth stealing maybe ?

Yep I agree.

Sometimes you don't need motivation to commit a crime but this particular crime strikes me as weird.

They knew what troubles the young lady had went through, they knew this. If they were just after the drugs then they could have robbed the house at night, or when she was out of the house. This seems to be a very poor attempt at robbing someone. With the 20 minutes to break into the house an all. I'm just a bit, hmmm lol at the whole thing.

And the other guy who is accused of 1st degree murder... don't you need to murder someone for this to be applied?

 

[TigerUK]

Americas still pretty much like the wild west, there are certain parts of the country were people would rater kill someone than to have a missing tv or something.

Personally I would just give a warning first. I've got a shotgun loaded with 6 rounds, do not come in. I'm pretty sure any burgler would take that warning pretty seriously and run off.

Though I think most people down south in America would rather kill an intruder and save the taxpayer some dime [prison costs].

But it's down to your individual choice at the end of the day, you'll have to live with the decision you've made to kill someone instead of warning them off. I'm pretty sure you'll get flashbacks about that until you die. "Did I do the right think and kill him".

Also what would have happened if it didn't go according to plan, burgler is armed, does not get a warning that there isan armed woman inside the house, home owners gun jams, burgler doesn't know that, and shoots his firearm and kills the mother..

Maybe a warning first could have warded off the burgler and prevented that scenario.

 

[DanWesson]

Maybe a warning first could have warded off the burgler and prevented that scenario.

Someone else who failed to retain the details of the story.

He went after her with a large knife. Seems like negotiating wasn't one of the short list of options available if her story is accurate. It's not normal for people to break into an occupied home. That's not simple burglary or killing someone over a "missing tv". What then makes you think simply warning the intruder that you are armed is enough to turn that type of situation around? How do you know she didn't warn them that she was armed? I'd guess most people would probably yell out they have a gun anyway.

The warning she did give by shooting an intruder should suffice for home intruders across the whole state. The social contract isn't, "Hey man, I know you're breaking into my house, but, you know, if you wouldn't mind not doing that we could be friends and stuff." Owning a gun for protection says nothing about how much one "would rather kill an intruder and save the taxpayer some dime." It's a decision to protect yourself and family using any reasonable measure necessary, meeting force with force if that's what it comes to.

The only thing you said I somewhat agree with is how difficult the aftermath will be, but it's bad either way. In this case it could've been a dead mother and an orphaned newborn. I'd rather see it the way it ended up. Also, you need to be clear that it's not a decision to kill but to STOP an attack.

But it's down to your individual choice at the end of the day, you'll have to live with the decision you've made to kill someone instead of warning them off. I'm pretty sure you'll get flashbacks about that until you die. "Did I do the right think and kill him".

*Maybe it would've been better if he killed me instead.*
I wish I could understand why this is so difficult for some people.

 

[tspesh]

There's no crime in finding information, I suggest you try it.

Why don't you just tell us

 

[ly2 from WF]

Why don't you just tell us

sick thread bump bro