First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Mom asks 911 permission to kill intruder
Posted 4/20/12

AZFox wrote:


BeelzebubII wrote:


AZFox wrote:

It's not our decision if it's right or not, that was the home owner's decision. And I honestly don't care since I wasn't part of the situation.

Secondly, I wouldn't want to be killed, but I wouldn't risk breaking in someone's house to even put myself in that position. You have no right to break into someone's home, you already give up your right to life if you do. A home owner has the right to protect their home, killing the intruder or not.


Well the home owner is sick , she has a shotgun? but not a stun gun? ....and the breaker also did something wrong
But he does not deserve death only because he broke into a house... People kill people... for no reason .....for no reason and still go to prison...
I know it's not my decision ...
and if someone broke into my house i would probably kill him


You think a stun gun is going to save you if you can't get close enough to even use it? Yeah, good luck with that one.

True, just breaking into someone's house should not grant one death, but the home owner DOES NOT KNOW THE INTENT, so why even bother waiting to figure it out when YOU MAY GET KILLED IN THAT TIME.

Yes, people kill people for no reason, but killing someone for breaking into your house is a reason, however weak you may think it to be. The fact remains that you do not know the intent of the intruder. Most cases it's a kill or be killed situation, you do not understand this.



I am not trying to jump in the line of fire between the two of you but at the same time I am trying to understand both points of views. Nothing personal, I do agree and understand what AZFox is trying to explain and would like to help, if possible, others have a better understanding as well. If not, then I'm sorry I couldn't be of much help.

The owner and intruder have 2 different mindsets. Usually, the intruder is thinking of the best solution to get into the house unnoticed and leaving unnoticed, and if worst case happened, s/he would be thinking of how to protect himself. The owner, who has already spotted the intruder, is thinking of how to protect herself and most importantly protect her kin. I hope the last thing they both result to of thinking is killing each other.

To my understanding, this lady had a reason to kill and let's stop saying that k-word for the moment. Her reason was to 'PROTECT' but what I hear you saying is that even though she had a shot gun but didn't have a stun gun, she should have just let the intruder intrude? What if he was a wanted man, a murderer, or a rapist? And let him get away with his criminal actions? Wouldn't that make the intruder sick?

It is not wrong or makes the individual a weird person to own a gun in their home. It is merely a choice the individual makes for himself/herself. Most people's reasons for owning guns is for self-defense, protection, etc. Some people may not have a gun, or be of age or hold a legal license to own an armed weapon so they may result to a pocketknife, pepper spray, or stun gun. I'm not a scientist but I would imagine that you would need to be a very good shooter to use a stun gun against an intruder that may be carrying a gun and that may withdraw that gun quicker than you can stun him with your stun gun. The way I see it, a stun gun's purpose is temporary. I would choose a gun but I would have to see if the intruder holds any harmful weapons in his hands. I would demand his hands to be raised and if he moved downward, I would shoot, shoot his leg to immobilize him and cautiously check pat him down for any hidden weapons, and anything else I can think of of doing to keep him from harming myself and my family before the cops take over the scene. As much as I love fantasizing myself as an attractive killer, in reality, I barely have the guts to be one much less perform the action of killing. If worst case comes to worst and someone is life-threatening to me and my family, and I have already given him a chance to surrender, he's done with. Call me a sicko, judge me all you want but just understand that as a mother, I had to do what I had to do in order to protect my kin.

Here is an 'if' scenario: If the owner of the residence were to shoot the intruder who stood on the sidewalk and died on the sidewalk, the owner of the residence would be committing a crime because the sidewalk is not private property, it is public.
4761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/20/12
18-year-old mother...
Posted 4/20/12 , edited 4/20/12

BeelzebubII wrote:


AZFox wrote:

You think a stun gun is going to save you if you can't get close enough to even use it? Yeah, good luck with that one.

True, just breaking into someone's house should not grant one death, but the home owner DOES NOT KNOW THE INTENT, so why even bother waiting to figure it out when YOU MAY GET KILLED IN THAT TIME.

Yes, people kill people for no reason, but killing someone for breaking into your house is a reason, however weak you may think it to be. The fact remains that you do not know the intent of the intruder. Most cases it's a kill or be killed situation, you do not understand this.


Firstly , You don't get to decide if i understand or if i don't
Secondly , All i am saying is , he does not have to die , the house owner could have easily left the house , with whatever she want's to protect , and she was on the phone with 911 ..........WTF?
Finally If u were related to that person ...... If i am related to that person , the one who died , i would get my revenge , i would kill that woman so horribly , and her whole family .... she created a circle of hate ...
“The only ones who may shoot are those who are prepared to get shot.” , so she has to pay back...
And Yea , a stun gun would knock anyone down , just hide ,wait , and stun the guy , he's as good as dead


If you understood we wouldn't be talking right now.

Why should she leave HER home? There is no guarantee that she will make it out of the house alive if she tried to run, either.

And it doesn't matter if you're related to that person, if they are in the wrong having intruded and got killed, you have no right to get revenge. The same would apply if the home owner died. Then the judicial system would take care of it.

That stun gun can't guarantee the intruder would be knocked out, and could provoke them even more leaving you in a worse situation. Also there is no guarantee that you will be able to hide well enough. Some house CREAK all over, giving away your position.



Posted 4/21/12 , edited 4/21/12

pinkrusse wrote:

I am not trying to jump in the line of fire between the two of you but at the same time I am trying to understand both points of views. Nothing personal, I do agree and understand what AZFox is trying to explain and would like to help, if possible, others have a better understanding as well. If not, then I'm sorry I couldn't be of much help.

The owner and intruder have 2 different mindsets. Usually, the intruder is thinking of the best solution to get into the house unnoticed and leaving unnoticed, and if worst case happened, s/he would be thinking of how to protect himself. The owner, who has already spotted the intruder, is thinking of how to protect herself and most importantly protect her kin. I hope the last thing they both result to of thinking is killing each other.

To my understanding, this lady had a reason to kill and let's stop saying that k-word for the moment. Her reason was to 'PROTECT' but what I hear you saying is that even though she had a shot gun but didn't have a stun gun, she should have just let the intruder intrude? What if he was a wanted man, a murderer, or a rapist? And let him get away with his criminal actions? Wouldn't that make the intruder sick?

It is not wrong or makes the individual a weird person to own a gun in their home. It is merely a choice the individual makes for himself/herself. Most people's reasons for owning guns is for self-defense, protection, etc. Some people may not have a gun, or be of age or hold a legal license to own an armed weapon so they may result to a pocketknife, pepper spray, or stun gun. I'm not a scientist but I would imagine that you would need to be a very good shooter to use a stun gun against an intruder that may be carrying a gun and that may withdraw that gun quicker than you can stun him with your stun gun. The way I see it, a stun gun's purpose is temporary. I would choose a gun but I would have to see if the intruder holds any harmful weapons in his hands. I would demand his hands to be raised and if he moved downward, I would shoot, shoot his leg to immobilize him and cautiously check pat him down for any hidden weapons, and anything else I can think of of doing to keep him from harming myself and my family before the cops take over the scene. As much as I love fantasizing myself as an attractive killer, in reality, I barely have the guts to be one much less perform the action of killing. If worst case comes to worst and someone is life-threatening to me and my family, and I have already given him a chance to surrender, he's done with. Call me a sicko, judge me all you want but just understand that as a mother, I had to do what I had to do in order to protect my kin.

Here is an 'if' scenario: If the owner of the residence were to shoot the intruder who stood on the sidewalk and died on the sidewalk, the owner of the residence would be committing a crime because the sidewalk is not private property, it is public.



AZFox wrote:

If you understood we wouldn't be talking right now.

Why should she leave HER home? There is no guarantee that she will make it out of the house alive if she tried to run, either.

And it doesn't matter if you're related to that person, if they are in the wrong having intruded and got killed, you have no right to get revenge. The same would apply if the home owner died. Then the judicial system would take care of it.

That stun gun can't guarantee the intruder would be knocked out, and could provoke them even more leaving you in a worse situation. Also there is no guarantee that you will be able to hide well enough. Some house CREAK all over, giving away your position.




To end this...I respect your opinions and (or) I understand your point of view , but still...I can't accept the fact that he died.....No matter what he did or what he planned to do........the only word i can say for his death is "Unfair"
...........
..................
For him to intrude was wrong , For her to kill him was also wrong ...Whose more at fault?
I think it was the intruder .. You are right , as he was the one who started it....
32079 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 4/21/12
Here is the law for Oklahoma, I know it well as I live there and agree with it fully in this case: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782


If I did not invite you into my home, you have no business there. I assume its perfectly logical that you wish me ill intent and I will use said law to protect myself as well as my loved ones.
37053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / on your lap, purring
Offline
Posted 4/21/12

munchthis wrote:
well unless its the actual police coming to arrest you, shooting them would be a bad idea. also she did have a pistol along with the shotgun.


Hmm well technically the police have to "announce" before entering your house. If they just walked right in and started pointing guns then they are doing so at their own risk. Unless you're one of the most wanted criminals in the world, you would have an advantage in court if you shot a police officer who just broke into your home unannounced.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.