18 Year Old Shoots Home Invader

Did she do the right thing, or not? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Right by the law, or right by some other principle?

The intruder had a knife and she shot him as soon as he entered the door.

Did she shout any warning or anything? It is not clear.

I think in the circumstances she was right to do so, both legally and morally.

But, what if a police officer shot dead a man who was 10 yards away and was only carrying a knife, and the police officer did not shout any warning?

I think justifiably the police officer should be convicted of manslaughter.

The difference is that (a) the police officer is trained (b) the woman in this case may not have had the space and time to shout any warning.

If she had shot him with a rifle down a 20 yard hallway without any warning, my views would be different. Maybe legally right, but not morally right.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd amendment, assault weapons, school shootings or anything.

It could be re enacted in any country, farmer has a shot gun at hand and shoots intruder.

There was a famous case in the UK a few years ago, farmer killed an intruder, the difference was that the intruder was shot in the back as he ran away. Hence he was convicted (rightly, in my view) of manslaughter.

Right by the law, or right by some other principle?

The intruder had a knife and she shot him as soon as he entered the door.

Did she shout any warning or anything? It is not clear.

I think in the circumstances she was right to do so, both legally and morally.

But, what if a police officer shot dead a man who was 10 yards away and was only carrying a knife, and the police officer did not shout any warning?

I think justifiably the police officer should be convicted of manslaughter.

The difference is that (a) the police officer is trained (b) the woman in this case may not have had the space and time to shout any warning.

If she had shot him with a rifle down a 20 yard hallway without any warning, my views would be different. Maybe legally right, but not morally right.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd amendment, assault weapons, school shootings or anything.

It could be re enacted in any country, farmer has a shot gun at hand and shoots intruder.

There was a famous case in the UK a few years ago, farmer killed an intruder, the difference was that the intruder was shot in the back as he ran away. Hence he was convicted (rightly, in my view) of manslaughter. Originally Posted by essence

Good points, and I agree for the most part. On the cop thing, I think they have the toughest time of anyone in making the decision to use deadly force. Sure they're trained, but the amount of info they have to process before discharging their gun is mind-numbing.

But, what if a police officer shot dead a man who was 10 yards away and was only carrying a knife, and the police officer did not shout any warning?

I think justifiably the police officer should be convicted of manslaughter.

The difference is that (a) the police officer is trained (b) the woman in this case may not have had the space and time to shout any warning. Originally Posted by essence

It depends on what the man with the knife is doing or had done in the knowledge of the officer. The officer is justified in using deadly force (which does not mandate death) if confronted with a person who is brandishing a deadly weapon (a knife qualifies) in a manner that the officer perceives as a threat to him or another person of serious bodily injury or death.

"10 yards" is not far in time. The officer is only 10 steps away from getting stabbed and a person running 10 paces can get there in a couple of seconds, may be three seconds. The threat is real and it is imminent. If he is confronting the officer, the officer would be justified in using deadly force (which does not necessarily mean death, but does include death), which means merely that the officer is using sufficient force to stop the person from using deadly force ... stabbing him with a knife. It's force opposing force.

That's generally the concept here in the United States. If the police officer is wearing a uniform or other distinctive indication of his authority (such as a badge or jacket) and the person refuses to put down the weapon and is threating the officer, in most states in the United States the killing of the officer is in the highest grade of felony, which can include the death penalty, so the presumption is that the person threatening with the knife is willing to risk the death penalty or life in prison ... and deadly force is appropriate.

Sure they're trained, but the amount of info they have to process before discharging their gun is mind-numbing. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

May be one second at most.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...sas-gun-murder

"On Sunday, two Kansas police officers were shot outside a grocery store, while responding to a report of a suspicious vehicle. The officers died later at a hospital, authorities said. Topeka police chief Ronald Miller called the shootings of Corporal David Gogian and Officer Jeff Atherly "unspeakable". He said Gogian, 50, and Atherly, 29, were shot in the head by a gunman, later identified as 22-year-old David Edward Tiscareno, who opened fire within minutes of their arrival to investigate the vehicle."

Don't even pretend to imply they had "minutes" to respond to a weapon being drawn on them!

Absolutely. If it comes down to a decision between an uninvited guest in my home or my kids, the uninvited guest loses...every time. Bye, bye, bad guy. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Any self respecting American would agree with that. I wonder how this situation would've turned out if this young mother would not have had a firearm to her disposal, due to some Government Ban or ridiculous regulation of the 2nd Amendment.

Any self respecting American would agree with that. I wonder how this situation would've turned out if this young mother would not have had a firearm to her disposal, due to some Government Ban or ridiculous regulation of the 2nd Amendment. Originally Posted by acp5762

http://www.wgrz.com/video/default.as...=2060992635001

@LL, you are being your normal self and making it more complicated and bringing up irrelevant cases, but I think in general you agree with me (try it sometimes, say 'I agree with you' ten times).

I used the example of 10 yards because it is not a clear cut case. Somebody running at you aiming a gun ten yards away is not the same as somebody standing still facing away from you holding a knife.

Obviously.

Try it again, say 'I agree'. Don't be so argumentative.

Same way, your two minutes is irrelevant, it is not the issue whether it happened 2 minutes after they arrived. It is the time at which they were threatened. They may have had a fraction of a second to respond. Or less, given that they died.

Neither of these cases you brought up alters the debate. The issue is to look at it in more detail and consider the whole circumstances.

On balance, the woman in this case, IMHO, was right. But if the facts were a little different, my views would change. Would yours?

Instead, these kinds of cases are used as a knee jerk reaction to justify whatever stupid policy is being pushed, on both sides.

In short, I'm not sure what your point is.

Would having everybody in a cinema armed reduce the deaths? Not according to many.

Would gun control laws in one state affect the gun controls in another state? Not much, so why are statistics being brought up relating deaths and gun control in a single state? Stupid.

Would changes in gun control throughout the US, plus an amnesty on those handing in weapons, (a) increase or decrease security (b) increase or decrease 'accidental' shootings (c) increase or decrease these mass killings or killings by mentally disturbed?

All one searches for (in vain so far) is an intelligent debate.

I seem to remember a statistic, that after 9/11 there were more resultant road deaths because people were afraid of flying, than the number of deaths on 9/11 itself. I may have it wrong, but use it as an example to show how these policy decisions are difficult.

or ridiculous regulation of the 2nd Amendment. Originally Posted by acp5762

What regulations of the 2nd Amendment would you approve or welcome?

- None
- Complete ban on all firearms
- Something sensible with wide support based on excellent analysis.

???

Answers please, stop beating your drum.

The girl did good.

An 18 year old with a gun.wonder if she took the hunter education course.

What regulations of the 2nd Amendment would you approve or welcome?

- None
- Complete ban on all firearms
- Something sensible with wide support based on excellent analysis.

???

Answers please, stop beating your drum. Originally Posted by essence

Well put!

@LL, you are being your normal self and making it more complicated and bringing up irrelevant cases,

but use it as an example to show how these policy decisions are difficult. Originally Posted by essence

You brought up the scenario, not me. Why do you even mention a "knife"?

There are at least two difficulties YOU are having ...

#1, one you are "over here" trying to tell the U.S. how to behave ...

#2, using a knife scenario to make your argument presuposes something that will not occur and that is that the persons in the UNITED STATES will be reduced to "knives ONLY" status in YOUR QUEST to DISARM those persons living in this country AGAIN!

And I am telling you that more than half the people stalking around like they are on the way to the OK Corral with a hog strapped to their hip have no CLUE as to how quickly a property trained and practiced person can traverse 10 yards and stick them .. fatally.

There are at least two difficulties YOU are having ...

#1, one you are "over here" trying to tell the U.S. how to behave ...

Get over it, that's your problem, I've been faced twice with a gun at close quarters in the US, I have as much right as anybody to coomment

#2, using a knife scenario to make your argument presuposes something that will not occur and that is that the persons in the UNITED STATES will be reduced to "knives ONLY" status in YOUR QUEST to DISARM those persons living in this country AGAIN!

I've read this a couple of times, still don;t understand what you are saying. I think maybe you are putting words into my mouth (again). Where exactly have I suggested that the right to bear arms should be removed?

And I am telling you that more than half the people stalking around like they are on the way to the OK Corral with a hog strapped to their hip have no CLUE as to how quickly a property trained and practiced person can traverse 10 yards and stick them .. fatally.

Agreed (see, it's not that difficult to agree). Many people in the UK are killed with knives.

My example of 10 yards was purely a range whereby it is not clear cut. Originally Posted by LexusLover

end

end Originally Posted by essence

"end" what .... your instructions to the United States of America ...

.. omg ..

essence: "I've been faced twice with a gun at close quarters in the US, ....."

Apparently someone twice made the cost-benefit analysis to not waste 32 cents by pulling the trigger, because you are here posting.

Every night when I climb in bed I am "faced" with a "gun at close quarters" (although it is not pointed at me)... and when I say "my prayers" I ask "the Lord" to assure that no dumbass will kick my door so that I will not have to clean up a mess and repair the sheetrock and trim work in the front of the house, not to mention replace the rounds expended to frustrate the attempt to invade my humble abode and interrupt my sweet dreams.

If he or she brings a knife with him or her, then that will merely confirm ..

. he or she is a REAL dumbass.

At least in Texas, if someone threatens a person with a knife it is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the person who is the subject matter of the assault may use deadly force to stop the assault...which means shoot them in self-defense. And when that person kicks the door with a knife and comes charging into the house with signs of life in the house then that person has made an election to suffer the consequences of being stopped.

So, if you don't want to stop people from hurting you or those in your family, don't. That's your decision, but don't be preaching to others and making it sound like "we" are the bad guys and the murderers for protecting ourselves in the manner provided by the laws of the particular state in which we respectively reside.

Well, as you noticed, this young lady had a 12 gage double barrel. That is probably state of the art when it comes to home defense.

I like the way everybody is saying "uninvited guest". These were two thugs, breaking into a private residence. God only knows what they had in mind for this young mother, and her baby.

Punk ass criminal meets 12 gage. Story over.