Cold-Heartded Vigilante Gal Cares More For Sofa Than Wounded Man

[bynmdsue]

“The only time I cursed was when he was going to lay down and bleed all over my couch,” Melissa said. “Don’t you dare bleed all over my (expletive) couch! He lay down on the floor.”

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/11/16/3035629/rural-oakdale-family-knew-the.html#storylink=cpy

Just because someone breaks into your house 3 times in one night is no reason to be rude.

 

[uke2se]

Just because someone breaks into your house 3 times in one night is no reason to be rude.

Did the guy have a gun? In the article, the gun swinging hero says he'd take a bullet to stop the guy from getting to the children, but the article didn't say if the guy had a gun or not. A bit less heroic if the guy was unarmed.

 

[Polaris]

Did the guy have a gun? In the article, the gun swinging hero says he'd take a bullet to stop the guy from getting to the children, but the article didn't say if the guy had a gun or not. A bit less heroic if the guy was unarmed.

Why would that make a difference? The guy had broken into someone else's house and continued toward an armed man after ignoring repeated orders to stop. It's been argued on this board that criminals and home invaders are likely to just take the gun from the home-owner and use it on them, after all.

Would you prefer the gun owner give the invader a gun of his own to make it even?

 

[uke2se]

Why would that make a difference? The guy had broken into someone else's house and continued toward an armed man after ignoring repeated orders to stop. It's been argued on this board that criminals and home invaders are likely to just take the gun from the home-owner and use it on them, after all.

Would you prefer the gun owner give the invader a gun of his own to make it even?

No, but he could have just as well used a knife, no? Or a bottle of bleach? I mean, if the guy didn't have a gun, the hero didn't have to use a gun either. There are so many equally dangerous things around the home.

 

[Segnosaur]

Did the guy have a gun? In the article, the gun swinging hero says he'd take a bullet to stop the guy from getting to the children, but the article didn't say if the guy had a gun or not. A bit less heroic if the guy was unarmed.

The article didn't say whether the intruder had a gun... but if the accounts are accurate:
- The homeowners did get him to leave the house, WITHOUT shooting at him. It was only after he broke back in that they fired. (Most garden-variety burglars probably would have taken off once they were discovered.)

I do have to wonder why the guy was so eager to get back in the house. He was outside and he knew the homeowners had firearms. Did he think he could overpower them? Did he think he stood a better chance holed up in the house instead of being on the run from the police?

 

[Giz]

No, but he could have just as well used a knife, no? Or a bottle of bleach? I mean, if the guy didn't have a gun, the hero didn't have to use a gun either. There are so many equally dangerous things around the home.

when an intruder might be a threat to his children, why should the home owner give the intruder a "fair" fight?

 

[Polaris]

when an intruder might be a threat to his children, why should the home owner give the intruder a "fair" fight?

I suspect the argument is that the home owner had a gun, therefore he's the bad guy, not the intruder.

 

[mgidm86]

Did the guy have a gun? In the article, the gun swinging hero says he'd take a bullet to stop the guy from getting to the children, but the article didn't say if the guy had a gun or not. A bit less heroic if the guy was unarmed.

Are you serious? The guy is lucky to be alive. He entered their house multiple times and broke through their door. Do you really think it is the families duty to assess whether or not he was armed? It takes about that long to get shot.

After reading some of the above posts I see people are living in a fantasy world where homeowners should pick suitable weapons to even up the playing field. Well what brave warriors we have here at JREF!

 

[uke2se]

when an intruder might be a threat to his children, why should the home owner give the intruder a "fair" fight?

Who's asking for a fair fight? I'm questioning whether the gun was necessary.

 

[uke2se]

Are you serious? The guy is lucky to be alive. He entered their house multiple times and broke through their door. Do you really think it is the families duty to assess whether or not he was armed? It takes about that long to get shot.

After reading some of the above posts I see people are living in a fantasy world where homeowners should pick suitable weapons to even up the playing field. Well what brave warriors we have here at JREF!

You misunderstand. I'm not questioning the actions of the heroes. I'm questioning whether the gun(s) where necessary in this situation. Therefore, I'm asking whether or not the intruder was armed.

 

[WildCat]

No, but he could have just as well used a knife, no? Or a bottle of bleach? I mean, if the guy didn't have a gun, the hero didn't have to use a gun either. There are so many equally dangerous things around the home.

You can't possibly be serious, can you? This isn't a sporting event.

 

[Beanbag]

The rules are simple: break into my house while I'm there, you're free meat. No one forced this idiot to break in ONCE, get warned away, then break in again, knowing what was waiting for him inside.

Screw bleach, screw a baseball bat, or pepper spray. I'm reaching for whatever will end the confrontation the fastest, which most likely will be a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with #4 steel shot. The sound alone of it being pumped usually ends any disagreements. Take another step, and things will get noisy and most likely bloody.

And, yes, get your bleeding carcass off my furniture and carpet. You've already caused me enough trouble, questions, and paperwork.

Obviously, the sympathetic posters here have never been robbed or assaulted. Changes your perspective when YOU become the one that's hurting.

Beanbag

 

[uke2se]

The rules are simple: break into my house while I'm there, you're free meat. No one forced this idiot to break in ONCE, get warned away, then break in again, knowing what was waiting for him inside.

Screw bleach, screw a baseball bat, or pepper spray. I'm reaching for whatever will end the confrontation the fastest, which most likely will be a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with #4 steel shot. The sound alone of it being pumped usually ends any disagreements. Take another step, and things will get noisy and most likely bloody.

And, yes, get your bleeding carcass off my furniture and carpet. You've already caused me enough trouble, questions, and paperwork.

Obviously, the sympathetic posters here have never been robbed or assaulted. Changes your perspective when YOU become the one that's hurting.

Beanbag

There's only one "sympathetic poster" here: me, and I'm not very sympathetic towards the intruder. I am merely questioning whether the guns where necessary or not. The reason I am doing this is that my suspicion that the OP posted this as an argument that guns are needed to ward against these kinds of things.

 

[Polaris]

There's only one "sympathetic poster" here: me, and I'm not very sympathetic towards the intruder. I am merely questioning whether the guns where necessary or not. The reason I am doing this is that my suspicion that the OP posted this as an argument that guns are needed to ward against these kinds of things.

When he finally broke in through the bathroom window he'd already had a bullet nick his ear.

Since he continued to approach someone who was armed, after being shot at once, it's reasonable that he was not in a normal frame of mind and an obvious threat, and shooting him was definitely justified before he could reach the homeowner and gain control of the weapon.

Without the gun, the invader would have had a lot more of an even playing field to do harm to the family, particularly if he was on some kind of drug.

 

[Beanbag]

I choose to live in this society, and follow its rules and guidelines. One of them is to not break into another person's abode unless there's a fire or emergency. Nor do I threaten people, or steal their property, or do them bodily harm. Because I choose to do so, I benefit from being a member of this society and am entitled to a minimum of its protection.

Those that decide to act otherwise are outside of society, and therefore DO NOT deserve any of its protection and benefits. You get out what you put in. I walk a narrow path called decency. I'm not out to take advantage of anyone. And I (and society) expect the same of others.

Was a gun necessary? Under the circumstances, hell, yes. Tragic? Hell, yes. Deserved? Hell, yes.

Now run along and sit by the fire and sing Kumbaya. The adults are talking, sonny.

Beanbag

 

[I Ratant]

Who's asking for a fair fight? I'm questioning whether the gun was necessary.

.
Threatening politely didn't work.
Escalate.

 

[uke2se]

When he finally broke in through the bathroom window he'd already had a bullet nick his ear.

Since he continued to approach someone who was armed, after being shot at once, it's reasonable that he was not in a normal frame of mind and an obvious threat, and shooting him was definitely justified before he could reach the homeowner and gain control of the weapon.

Without the gun, the invader would have had a lot more of an even playing field to do harm to the family, particularly if he was on some kind of drug.

But was the gun necessary? Did it escalate the situation? Police were on their way. In fact, during the last break-in, they were there. Could another course of action have proven equally successful, such as a right fist to the face?

Again, please not that I'm not questioning the actions of the heroes. They did what they thought was best, and they are obviously in their full right. I'm only questioning whether this could/would have had the same outcome if you took the gun out of the picture, and even if there could have been a better outcome.

 

[Giz]

There's only one "sympathetic poster" here: me, and I'm not very sympathetic towards the intruder. I am merely questioning whether the guns where necessary or not. The reason I am doing this is that my suspicion that the OP posted this as an argument that guns are needed to ward against these kinds of things.

would you risk your family's safety for that of an intruder?

 

[uke2se]

I choose to live in this society, and follow its rules and guidelines. One of them is to not break into another person's abode unless there's a fire or emergency. Nor do I threaten people, or steal their property, or do them bodily harm. Because I choose to do so, I benefit from being a member of this society and am entitled to a minimum of its protection.

Agreed.

Those that decide to act otherwise are outside of society, and therefore DO NOT deserve any of its protection and benefits. You get out what you put in. I walk a narrow path called decency. I'm not out to take advantage of anyone. And I (and society) expect the same of others.

Here's where you're wrong. Even the worst criminal on Earth has human rights.

Was a gun necessary? Under the circumstances, hell, yes. Tragic? Hell, yes. Deserved? Hell, yes.

How do you know it was necessary? Can you prove it?

Now run along and sit by the fire and sing Kumbaya. The adults are talking, sonny.

Beanbag

Completely unnecessary insult. Bye-bye.

 

[uke2se]

would you risk your family's safety for that of an intruder?

Nope. Relevance?

Seriously, is anyone reading my posts? I see a lot of people throwing themselves at an argument I didn't make.