http://www.news9.com/story/19858704/12-year-old-girl-shoots-intruder-during-home-invasion

BRYAN COUNTY, Oklahoma - A 12-year-old girl took matters into her own hands during a home invasion in southeast Oklahoma.
It happened on Wednesday when the girl was home alone. She told police a stranger rang the doorbell, then went around to the back door and kicked it in. She called her mom, Debra St. Clair, who told her to get the family gun, hide in a closet and call 911.

That was when St. Clair dropped what she doing and raced home.

"I drove home at a really fast pace to try to get to her, and when I got here the police were already here. And they had the suspect," she said.

The during that time, the intruder made his way through the house. St. Clair's daughter told deputies the man came into the room where she was hiding and began to open up the closet door. That was when the 12-year-old had to make a life-saving decision.

"And what we understand right now, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door," said the Bryan County Undersheriff Ken Golden.

The bullet hit the intruder, who deputies identified as 32-year-old Stacey Jones. He took off but did not get far before officers took him down.

"He was sitting down, the policemen had him apprehended at the end of the block. All I saw was some blood coming down his back. I'm not exactly sure where his injury was, but I saw some blood there," explained St. Clair.

Jones was taken to a Texas hospital by helicopter after the incident. An investigator on the case said Jones was released from the hospital Thursday and extradited to the Bryan County Jail.

The 12-year-old girl was not injured during the ordeal.

Guy named Stacey got shot by a girl... while being a miserable piece of trash.

What a failure.

Loser,

From now own, firearms training with be mandatory in public schools. Now thats using education wisely.

I feel bad for his little girl having to shoot someone; which wars with my desire to trumpet my pro-gun beliefs.

OK seems to be a gakcave wasn't tha 19year old widow in OK when she shot an intruder on the phone with 911?

Well done that girl.

Poor fire control. Should've waited until the intruder opened the door and presented her with a clear target.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Poor fire control. Should've waited until the intruder opened the door and presented her with a clear target.

No need. She clearly has x-ray vision.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Poor fire control. Should've waited until the intruder opened the door and presented her with a clear target.

No, that's a pretty legit time to shoot. No reason to give the intruder a better chance to see you. We (a mil/LEO community forum) had a spirited discussion to the legality of shooting through the door when the FBI chainsawed the wrong door down a few months back.

Shame she didn't go for a head shot.

No excuse at that range.

Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

You would be.

Stacey? I can see how a name like that would drive you to a life of crime.

Good for her. It's nice to know that her family is open enough with her to tell her where the family gun is, and that they trusted her enough for it to be withing reach.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

I knew where the guns were and had access to them at an early age. So did my siblings. We were properly trained on the use and dangers of firearms and never 'played' with them. Also our family went out shooting often enough that they weren't a novelty anymore. Guns had no more mystique than the the knives in the block on the kitchen counter; we never bragged about them to our friends, or let them badger us into looking at them.

Real gun control starts and ends with education.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

You're kidding right?

let's look at the facts on this young lady's family.

1) She's from Texas
2) Her mother told her to call 911 AND grab the gun, implying some level of control with the firearm.
3) She's from Texas
4) A gun is intimidating in almost anyone's hands, it doesn't even have to be a kill shot
5) The gun was a last minute defense, since 911 was called, the child's mother was called, and she was told to HIDE, not hunt.

 Lordhat wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

I knew where the guns were and had access to them at an early age. So did my siblings. We were properly trained on the use and dangers of firearms and never 'played' with them. Also our family went out shooting often enough that they weren't a novelty anymore. Guns had no more mystique than the the knives in the block on the kitchen counter; we never bragged about them to our friends, or let them badger us into looking at them.

Real gun control starts and ends with education.

Yeah, I was loading and firing guns when I was 12. Never unsupervised, but that's the point. Guns are tools. I wouldn't hide screwdrivers from my hypothetical kids. I would teach them how to use them. That was also about the age that I started getting instructed on the power tools, and a lot of those are easily as dangerous to their user, if not more-so.

12?
Kind of a late bloomer D.

 AustonT wrote:
12?
Kind of a late bloomer D.

Not my fault. My liberal mother coddled me.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

She called her mom who told her where it was.

My liberal mother shot 6 deer from a lawn chair when she was pregnant with me. Somewhere I have photographic evidence.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

You're kidding right?

let's look at the facts on this young lady's family.

1) She's from Texas
2) Her mother told her to call 911 AND grab the gun, implying some level of control with the firearm.
3) She's from Texas
4) A gun is intimidating in almost anyone's hands, it doesn't even have to be a kill shot
5) The gun was a last minute defense, since 911 was called, the child's mother was called, and she was told to HIDE, not hunt.

This happened in Oklahoma, but the burglar was taken to a hospital in Texas. To be fair, that doesn't mean the woman wasn't originally from Texas. We'll take her back, though.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

She called her mom who told her where it was.

Maybe its just me, But i believe that guns shouldnt be handled by anyone under the age of 16.

Yeah, that's where I read Texas... >_<

Still... at the same time...

And dude, that's your opinion, had the little girl NOT had access the gun, the kid might have been harmed.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

You're kidding right?

let's look at the facts on this young lady's family.

1) She's from Texas
2) Her mother told her to call 911 AND grab the gun, implying some level of control with the firearm.
3) She's from Texas
4) A gun is intimidating in almost anyone's hands, it doesn't even have to be a kill shot
5) The gun was a last minute defense, since 911 was called, the child's mother was called, and she was told to HIDE, not hunt.

At 12 GC was already versed in shooting .22s .380s, and was a badass with a Beretta 92.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

She called her mom who told her where it was.

Maybe its just me, But i believe that guns shouldnt be handled by anyone under the age of 16.

There was fething intruder in the house, who may have known the little girl was there alone and may have been intending to Rape her.

It doesnt say he had those intentions or knowledge. And no im not defending him, im just playing devils advocate her, just because guns exist, doesnt mean we have to use them.She could have ran out back to her neighbors.

Hey, she was just doing what her mother told her to do. That's a good, well behaved child if you ask me.

Also, who's to say she couldn't get past the man to get out of the house... Remember, the man had already broken into the house by the time she called her mother...

I never claimed he did, but its best to assume the worst in a case like this.

And she was told to get the gun and hide, which is the best course of action in this case. Especially since the police and mom are on their way already.

Im just saying that at the age of 12, even if properly trained, mistakes are more likely to happen. I would rather my 12 year old, who i will talk to about guns and take to a shooting range so he/she will know what a gun is actually like, to handle a gun. In that situation, I would have told her to go out back to the neighbors house.

As was said, the Intruder was already in the house. It would not have been safe for her to make a break for it. Better the intruder doesn't know you are there, and certaintly not where you are exactly.

She wasn't playing around with the gun, she was hiding in the closet and the gun was her last line of defense.

I guess wwe will have to agree to disagree, I do not think a child hiding with a gun is the best course of action. You think differently

I suppose so

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I guess wwe will have to agree to disagree, I do not think a child hiding with a gun is the best course of action. You think differently

I understand how you feel on this man, but think of it this way. What if your child was hurt during the fleeing to the neighbor's house? And you knew that your child knew where the gun was and knew how to handle it properly, how might you feel if your child could have had a shot at defending himself or herself?

In the end, we would always look at it this way, "How do I feel is the best for my child?"

Mine is, my kid better know how to use the gun, if not... Make a break for it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im just saying that at the age of 12, even if properly trained, mistakes are more likely to happen.

Are you quite certain? What makes you magically responsible at the age of 16? It's arbitrary.

In that situation, I would have told her to go out back to the neighbors house.

Yup. And the sleezeball rang the doorbell, and then went to the back door to kick it in. Congrats, you ushered your precious little child into the hands of the invader. I hope you get her back when he's done with her.

At least you kept her protected from that scary firearm though. Good jerb.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It doesnt say he had those intentions or knowledge. And no im not defending him, im just playing devils advocate her, just because guns exist, doesnt mean we have to use them.She could have ran out back to her neighbors.

Texans don't run.

Yeah, Its all the BBQ they eat.

It was my bad Frazz, I misread... the young girl was from Oklahoma... they took the intruder to a Texas hospital...

This is way I think every child should have gun safety and shooting classes. I was using a rifle at 8 and a lot of my friends and knew how to shot a handgun by 10, we have never shot are selfs or anyone else. But I know a rookie cop that shot his own foot, it training in gun handling that matters not age.

Noir wrote:
This is way I think every child should have gun safety and shooting classes. I was using a rifle at 8 and a lot of my friends and knew how to shot a handgun by 10, we have never shot are selfs or anyone else. But I know a rookie cop that shot his own foot, it training in gun handling that matters not age.

What about kids whose parents dont support it being taught to their kids? I know a few.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Noir wrote:
This is way I think every child should have gun safety and shooting classes. I was using a rifle at 8 and a lot of my friends and knew how to shot a handgun by 10, we have never shot are selfs or anyone else. But I know a rookie cop that shot his own foot, it training in gun handling that matters not age.

What about kids whose parents dont support it being taught to their kids? I know a few.

They can take sociology.

Why do i feel like this is an insult to Sociology?

 AustonT wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Noir wrote:
This is way I think every child should have gun safety and shooting classes. I was using a rifle at 8 and a lot of my friends and knew how to shot a handgun by 10, we have never shot are selfs or anyone else. But I know a rookie cop that shot his own foot, it training in gun handling that matters not age.

What about kids whose parents dont support it being taught to their kids? I know a few.

They can take sociology.

Or read the Prius driver's manual.

BAM!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yeah, Its all the BBQ they eat.

THAT is an amazingly accurate statement.

IN reality I'd proffer that might be the best course. However it depends on circumstances. If the intruder is in the house escape is not an option.
Our firearms are locked up fyi.

I think my first reflex if someone's banging on the door, is to have them call 911, and hide in the bathtub. If they are older, they do the same but hide in the bathub with a 9mm. I can give them the code over the phone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Noir wrote:
This is way I think every child should have gun safety and shooting classes. I was using a rifle at 8 and a lot of my friends and knew how to shot a handgun by 10, we have never shot are selfs or anyone else. But I know a rookie cop that shot his own foot, it training in gun handling that matters not age.

What about kids whose parents dont support it being taught to their kids? I know a few.

That they are godless communists that should be beaten as they are driven across the border into Canada? I'm, just putting that out there.

 Frazzled wrote:

I think my first reflex if someone's banging on the door, is to have them call 911, and hide in the bathtub. If they are older, they do the same but hide in the bathub with a 9mm. I can give them the code over the phone.

While I like the idea of you telling the intruder banging on the door to preemptively call 911, why would you have them hide in your bathtub, let alone with one of your guns? Give them a fighting chance?

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I think my first reflex if someone's banging on the door, is to have them call 911, and hide in the bathtub. If they are older, they do the same but hide in the bathub with a 9mm. I can give them the code over the phone.

While I like the idea of you telling the intruder banging on the door to preemptively call 911, why would you have them hide in your bathtub, let alone with one of your guns? Give them a fighting chance?

Because the ten million wiener dogs coming up the stairs to eat them alive hate baths and thats the only place an intruder is even remotely safe?

Would you rather be reading a story about a 12 years old girl who shot a criminal, or a story about a 12 year old being raped and murdered in a home invasion?

Apparently the latter, because victimization is the new 'hip' in the US.

This moment of self-actualization might have ACTUALLY forced this child into realizing she's capable of influencing the world around her. God forbid.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It doesnt say he had those intentions or knowledge. And no im not defending him, im just playing devils advocate her, just because guns exist, doesnt mean we have to use them.She could have ran out back to her neighbors.

Texans don't run.

Just pointing out here, but I doubt many B/E criminals don't take time to open closet doors unless they know someone is home... To me, that is intent....

And if I were her parents' she'd probably be grounded, since she missed center mass, and he got out of the house.


And I'm with Swordbreaker, I am all for the NRA favoring stories in the media about the "defenseless" Americans out there defending themselves properly. I have 2 children of my own, and if they were faced with this situation, I can only hope that I will have trained/taught them well enough that this would be the outcome as well.

 daedalus wrote:
Apparently the latter, because victimization is the new 'hip' in the US.

This moment of self-actualization might have ACTUALLY forced this child into realizing she's capable of influencing the world around her. God forbid.

And at such an important time in her life. I imagine she will turn out to be a remarkable mature young women. This will be a valuable life experience that might temper the usual Teenage stupidity.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It doesnt say he had those intentions or knowledge. And no im not defending him, im just playing devils advocate her, just because guns exist, doesnt mean we have to use them.She could have ran out back to her neighbors.

Texans don't run.

Just pointing out here, but I doubt many B/E criminals don't take time to open closet doors unless they know someone is home... To me, that is intent....

And if I were her parents' she'd probably be grounded, since she missed center mass, and he got out of the house.


And I'm with Swordbreaker, I am all for the NRA favoring stories in the media about the "defenseless" Americans out there defending themselves properly. I have 2 children of my own, and if they were faced with this situation, I can only hope that I will have trained/taught them well enough that this would be the outcome as well.

Yeah I'm really disappointed she didn't have a follow up shot as well as missing center of mass, at that range you should really be hitting a hammer pair. So were it my child she'd have to go to extra range time with daddy instead of playing with her friends for a couple weekends, but she would definitely be getting an ice cream.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Apparently the latter, because victimization is the new 'hip' in the US.

This moment of self-actualization might have ACTUALLY forced this child into realizing she's capable of influencing the world around her. God forbid.

And at such an important time in her life. I imagine she will turn out to be a remarkable mature young women. This will be a valuable life experience that might temper the usual Teenage stupidity.

Whoa now... let's not be too hasty, that almost sounds like you're casting firearms, personal responsibility and the will and ability to defend yourself in a positive light! *sarcasm*

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:



Yeah I'm really disappointed she didn't have a follow up shot as well as missing center of mass, at that range you should really be hitting a hammer pair. So were it my child she'd have to go to extra range time with daddy instead of playing with her friends for a couple weekends, but she would definitely be getting an ice cream.

Perhaps she didn't get the second half of her controlled pair off because she wasn't wearing her ppe?? Lol, that'd be something to see. A 12 year old, when told to grab the family gun, also has the presence of mind to put in the ear-pro

Come on, when you've got an intruder, the last thing on your mind should be ear protection. Besides, headphones already do an excellent job at destroying your ear drums.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Apparently the latter, because victimization is the new 'hip' in the US.

This moment of self-actualization might have ACTUALLY forced this child into realizing she's capable of influencing the world around her. God forbid.

And at such an important time in her life. I imagine she will turn out to be a remarkable mature young women. This will be a valuable life experience that might temper the usual Teenage stupidity.

Whoa now... let's not be too hasty, that almost sounds like you're casting firearms, personal responsibility and the will and ability to defend yourself in a positive light! *sarcasm*

Sorry, I don't know what came over me

I can't seem to shake that a "harden" criminal got taking out by a twelve year old girl....he never live it down in general population...

Ok, lets discuss that.


We have 2 possabilities for the Criminal's intent.

1) He was just a burgler looking for some valuables to steal

2) He was a rapist


In scenerio 1, he was breaking into a house and about to rummage through a closet when suddenly he gets shot at very close range through the door. "HOLY ****!" That would make anyone hightail it out of there.

In scenerio 2. he's looking for the girl hiding in the house. He starts looking and eventually comes to a closet. Just when he starts to open it, he gets shot "HOLY ****, the little dame is armed and I've been shot. I better get out of here before I get shot again and possably die."

Someone breaking into a house is going to be naturally jumpy. Having your worst nightmare happen to you will set off the fight or flight response, and criminals tend to be cowardly so the flight response is what will win most of the time.


He may not have even realized he was hurt till he made it outside.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, lets discuss that.


We have 2 possabilities for the Criminal's intent.

1) He was just a burgler looking for some valuables to steal

2) He was a rapist


In scenerio 1, he was breaking into a house and about to rummage through a closet when suddenly he gets shot at very close range through the door. "HOLY ****!" That would make anyone hightail it out of there.

In scenerio 2. he's looking for the girl hiding in the house. He starts looking and eventually comes to a closet. Just when he starts to open it, he gets shot "HOLY ****, the little dame is armed and I've been shot. I better get out of here before I get shot again and possably die."

Someone breaking into a house is going to be naturally jumpy. Having your worst nightmare happen to you will set off the fight or flight response, and criminals tend to be cowardly so the flight response is what will win most of the time.


He may not have even realized he was hurt till he made it outside.

What made him attempt to rummage through that particular closet? According to the article, he rang the doorbell, then wen through the back. Something tells me he knew someone was home. I think you're making quite a few assumptions with scenario 2. I mean, by that measure, we can have scenario 3, in which the perp is actually a kidnapper looking to pick up said 12 year old for whatever fethed up reason he has, only to find that she's not just a cute little kid with a set of lungs.

Well, your scenerio 3 would fall into the same catagory as Scenerio 2. Really the same outcome and reaction regardless of the intention being rape or rape and kidnapping or just kidnapping.


With a burglery, he's been found out/shot at. better run for your life.

With a rape/kidnapping, his chosen victim has a gun and is willing to use it. better run for your life.

I'm british and don't believe guns should be legal, yet I agree with most of the pro gun stances here. Strange huh?

Hotsauce if she was six I would be worried, anything above 8 in my opinion is fine to handle a firearm on their own land.

Assuming they're semi versed with gun control.

If this was in the UK, the intruder would be able to sue for injuries, psychological damage, as well as compensation for being unable to return to his line of work. The girl's parents would be kept under supervision for leaving a gun in a way it can be used by a child, the child herself possibly being taken away and put into care.

/political rant.

 Valkyrie wrote:
If this was in the UK, the intruder would be able to sue for injuries, psychological damage, as well as compensation for being unable to return to his line of work. The girl's parents would be kept under supervision for leaving a gun in a way it can be used by a child, the child herself possibly being taken away and put into care.

/political rant.

I'd rather have to deal with all that, and still have a LIVING child, rather than another possible outcome. Here in the US, not too many judges will remove a child from parents in a case like this, assuming that the 12 year old is really the only child, or that only children of a more or less, acceptable age, can access the firearms if needed.

Noone has blamed the victim yet?

I mean come on, it was clearly the girl's fault for being home alone. The man was just trying to do a bit of casual burglary, even ringing the doorbell to make sure noone was home, and suddenly gets shot as he opens a cupboard. He had no idea there was an armed child there!

 Castiel wrote:
Noone has blamed the victim yet?

I mean come on, it was clearly the girl's fault for being home alone. The man was just trying to do a bit of casual burglary, even ringing the doorbell to make sure noone was home, and suddenly gets shot as he opens a cupboard. He had no idea there was an armed child there!

But who is the victim in this case? The girl who's home was broken into? Or is it the dumbass who got shot?

Clearly the poor innocent man who was shot by that EVIL gun armed tween is the victim here! How ever shall he safely rob homes again with armed 12 year olds ready and waiting?

Also I concur... this dude is gonna have A LOT of fun in GP when they lock him up.

Good for the girl!

Intruder in my house would be dead.... 'jus saying.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Poor fire control. Should've waited until the intruder opened the door and presented her with a clear target.

I am glad she didnt. Then she will remember the sound of gunfire in an enclosed space and th flash, but not the trauma of having shot someone. There will be a new hole in the door, a sound and a fleeing shadow as the intruder tried to flee.
Best outcome really.

Trying to hide guns from kids is a big reason for kids to become curious and look for them and play with them.

Teaching kids how to handle and respect guns is no different than teaching them to handle and respect a lot of tools you might have in your garage.

 d-usa wrote:
Trying to hide guns from kids is a big reason for kids to become curious and look for them and play with them.

Teaching kids how to handle and respect guns is no different than teaching them to handle and respect a lot of tools you might have in your garage.

It's funny you should say that. I'm intimately more worried about my nieces and nephews getting hurt in the garage than the gun room. I never put a whole lot of thought to either, because I a. Don't have my own kids and B. grew up on a farm which is this sands of deaths waiting to happen. My middle brother barely allows his kids out of his sight in my house. And I don't blame him.

 mattyrm wrote:
Shame she didn't go for a head shot.

No excuse at that range.

I didn't need to read any farther than this.

This story warms the cockles of my heart. Perhaps even deeper than the cockles. Perhaps even the sub-cockle region.

#Dennis Leary paraphrase

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

I hope you are kidding, I really do.

Wonder what caliber the pistol was...

 d-usa wrote:
Trying to hide guns from kids is a big reason for kids to become curious and look for them and play with them.

Teaching kids how to handle and respect guns is no different than teaching them to handle and respect a lot of tools you might have in your garage.

Exalted.

 Lordhat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trying to hide guns from kids is a big reason for kids to become curious and look for them and play with them.

Teaching kids how to handle and respect guns is no different than teaching them to handle and respect a lot of tools you might have in your garage.

Exalted.

Same.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Castiel wrote:
Noone has blamed the victim yet?

I mean come on, it was clearly the girl's fault for being home alone. The man was just trying to do a bit of casual burglary, even ringing the doorbell to make sure noone was home, and suddenly gets shot as he opens a cupboard. He had no idea there was an armed child there!

But who is the victim in this case? The girl who's home was broken into? Or is it the dumbass who got shot?

Both?...

Did they at least say where he got hit?

Upper chest and guessing a collapse lung to from the limited description of the perp.

Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

So there it is finally...
It is all your fault for paying taxes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

Those incarcerated live better then those of us deployed

 Jihadin wrote:
Those incarcerated live better then those of us deployed

About the only way we military folks are equal to prisoners is in our food....seriously look at the main meal boxes that come in to the chow halls. They say "for consumption by soldiers and prisoners only"

Yup, Class D meat baby.

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

Easy, the people just get billed for it like anyone that goes to the Emergency Room that doesn't have insurance.

So they are thrown into black pit of our Healthcare system, the tender mercies of crippling debt

And lets just toss on any medical bills that officers or bystanders incurr as a result of the crime in question onto their tab while we are at it.


Perpetrator resists arrest, perp cracks a rib in the scuffle, officer suffers a torn bicep. perp is billed for his medical treatment and the officers medical treatment. He also is billed for any treatment he recieves while incarcerated.

So, in addition to any criminal charges he is sentanced for, he has many thousands of dollars in medical bills. Which he must pay even if the charges are later dropped. So its a double whammy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

Look on the bright side, perhaps God will smite him before it comes down to that... You never know.

I'd say getting shot by a 12 year old girl qualifies as divine retribution. O'wait, its the welcoming reception in the slammer thats the retribution

at least if they were firing bolters their aim would be horrendous

 DIDM wrote:
at least if they were firing bolters their aim would be horrendous

and a left hook to the Sisters comes out of nowhere.

Poor bolter biatches

Just a nick from a bolter round just would have removed the chest cavity

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

law-abiding citizens.. reference to the movie?
If so--> I see what you did there.
If not: WHELP. okay.

In any case, I'm happy for the 12-year old. But I wonder: have any of the U.S. election candidates addressed the topic of paying taxes for prisoners and such?
That could make an interesting argument with only a few weeks to go.

Also, I wish I learned how to fire guns. only a few years older than the 12-year old... self-defense goes down to martial arts if it has to happen.. Nunchucks, wooden sword,

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yup, Class D meat baby.

I have no idea what you guys are bitching about. I love the food. The mystery Meat (veal ha!) with gravy. Chipped beef and toast, corned beef and stale white bread.
Waaaait a minute we don't eat like prisoners; we eat like turn of the cuntury Irish!

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yup, Class D meat baby.

I have no idea what you guys are bitching about. I love the food. The mystery Meat (veal ha!) with gravy. Chipped beef and toast, corned beef and stale white bread.
Waaaait a minute we don't eat like prisoners; we eat like turn of the cuntury Irish!

And the difference is...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yup, Class D meat baby.

I have no idea what you guys are bitching about. I love the food. The mystery Meat (veal ha!) with gravy. Chipped beef and toast, corned beef and stale white bread.
Waaaait a minute we don't eat like prisoners; we eat like turn of the cuntury Irish!

And the difference is...

We aren't in Australia.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

I'm more concerned about what would have happened to her if she HADN'T known where the gun was and had access to it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im just saying that at the age of 12, even if properly trained, mistakes are more likely to happen. I would rather my 12 year old, who i will talk to about guns and take to a shooting range so he/she will know what a gun is actually like, to handle a gun. In that situation, I would have told her to go out back to the neighbors house.

And if the intruder's too close to reach an exterior door safely?
And if the intruder can run faster than the 12-year old?
And if the neighbor's not home?
And if the intruder has a gun and no reason NOT to kill the neighbor to get to the kid?

You make four too many assumptions when life is on the line.

And you are making assumptions right there aswell. As far as we know, he was there just to rob the house.
And we dont know, from the sound of it, if she had enough tim to get the gun, and hide in the closet, she may have had enough time to get out of the house.

Better to err on the side of NOT getting kidnapped/raped/killed... also I don't know about this house, but in many households I know, the "house gun" lives in one of the parent's closets.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And you are making assumptions right there aswell. As far as we know, he was there just to rob the house.
And we dont know, from the sound of it, if she had enough tim to get the gun, and hide in the closet, she may have had enough time to get out of the house.

Again, you miss the fact the Intruder was already in the house by the time she called 911 and her mom. Escape was NOT an option.

We must ALWAYS assume the worst, because if you don't then if it does happen you will take the blame.


a kid hiding in a closet with a gun is a million times safer then one trying to escape and run for the neighbors, who may not be home and also may not be the best people to protect your kid.

 Jihadin wrote:
Those incarcerated live better then those of us deployed

Not under Sheriff Joe.

Well that is my belief, I see where you are coming from, you think a 12yr old with a gun is OK, and i understand that. I myself do not, I think that it is not. I do not think a child should not be allowed near a firearm because of accident that can happen. What if she shot her foot and the guy got her then?
I dont think i will come back to this thread, it just us arguing inn circles.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well that is my belief, I see where you are coming from, you think a 12yr old with a gun is OK, and i understand that. I myself do not, I think that it is not. I do not think a child should not be allowed near a firearm because of accident that can happen. What if she shot her foot and the guy got her then?
I dont think i will come back to this thread, it just us arguing inn circles.

If he got her she's dead. So being shot in the foot won't really matter will it? Yes that's an assumption but in the U.S. at present it's a pretty safe assumption to make. Little girls who go missing don't come back home very often.

I really can't believe someone's arguing the "pro-little girls being raped/kidnapped" side to this story.

Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

Indeed.
It's just everyone here seems to assume guns and kids are allright.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

Generally I'd agree with you, but in this situation I'd rather see my kid, if trained properly and I actually had one, armed and able to defend themselves. As previously said, little grls who go missing don't tend to come home. See Maddie McCann and April Jones for proof.

Guns are only dangerous when the people handling them are improperly using them.

A kid playing with a gun is dangerous. A kid trying to be as quiet as possable while holding a gun is not, except to the person the gun is supposed to protect from.


Guns are no more dangerous then knives, cars, or any number of common household items. Dogs are MORE dangerous, more kids get hurt every year by dogs then by guns.

Um, Couldnt the dog thing be more that dogs are more common in a household then a gun? I mean i know plenty of people that have dogs bu no guns.

Approx seventy one million dogs exist as house pets in the United States today

There are something along the lines of three hundred million firearms in private ownership.

You do the math.

(P.S. for a fascinating example of why a backyard swimming pool is far more likely to kill your child then a ND with a pistol read "Superfreakonomics")

Edit:

Me personally I have been shooting since I was a wee nipper, I have NEVER sustained an injury from a firearm, self inflicted or otherwise. I have however gotten a REALLY bad bite off a dog as kid. Guns are tools, they don't have emotions, or thoughts or react to things, they're just there, an educated child around a gun is no more dangerous then that same child around a squirt gun. Dogs on the other hand do have their own emotions and thoughts and are thus a little different then a hunk of steel and plastic.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

She called her mom who told her where it was.

Maybe its just me, But i believe that guns shouldnt be handled by anyone under the age of 16.

So you believe that there is a magic moment on everyone's 16th birthday that bestows knowledge of firearms upon them?

hotsauceman1 wrote:And you are making assumptions right there aswell. As far as we know, he was there just to rob the house.
And we dont know, from the sound of it, if she had enough tim to get the gun, and hide in the closet, she may have had enough time to get out of the house.

Perhaps. But this creates a matrix of possibilities. let's examine:
1. Kid gets gun and fends off intruder.
2. Kid gets gun and injures herself.
3. Kid does not get gun, runs away successfully.
4. Kid does not get gun, is unable to run away, very bad things happen.

1. We know this, via hindsight, to be the truth.
2. The mother obviously thought this was of such a low chance, likely due to knowledge of her kid that we do not possess, but can logically infer.
3. This is a reasonable assumption.
4. This is also a reasonable assumption.

-Assuming on a black slate these four options are equally likely; 25% chance of each event taking place without additional knowledge.
-The mother had more knowledge of her kid than we do, hence why she made the call that she did.
-If the kid is aware of where the gun is and can work the safety, a reasonable assumption is that the kid has handled a firearm before; likely via parent.
-With that assumption, much of the probability from scenario 2 should be diverted to scenario 1.

We are now left with a matrix like this:

1. 45% - Kid gets gun, shoots intruder
2. 05% - Kid gets gun, shoots self
3. 25% - Kid runs away, all is well
4. 25% - Kid runs away, bad things happen

of all the options presented, the option that the mother chose, and we have the benefit of hindsight to validate, was the correct option. Had the kid run away, she would have a 50/50 chance in that situation, without knowledge of other variables, of winning or losing. Those odds pale in comparison to the 90% probability of winning in the situation where she gets the gun.

 Lordhat wrote:
http://www.news9.com/story/19858704/12-year-old-girl-shoots-intruder-during-home-invasion

BRYAN COUNTY, Oklahoma - A 12-year-old girl took matters into her own hands during a home invasion in southeast Oklahoma.
It happened on Wednesday when the girl was home alone. She told police a stranger rang the doorbell, then went around to the back door and kicked it in. She called her mom, Debra St. Clair, who told her to get the family gun, hide in a closet and call 911.

That was when St. Clair dropped what she doing and raced home.

"I drove home at a really fast pace to try to get to her, and when I got here the police were already here. And they had the suspect," she said.

The during that time, the intruder made his way through the house. St. Clair's daughter told deputies the man came into the room where she was hiding and began to open up the closet door. That was when the 12-year-old had to make a life-saving decision.

"And what we understand right now, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door," said the Bryan County Undersheriff Ken Golden.

The bullet hit the intruder, who deputies identified as 32-year-old Stacey Jones. He took off but did not get far before officers took him down.

"He was sitting down, the policemen had him apprehended at the end of the block. All I saw was some blood coming down his back. I'm not exactly sure where his injury was, but I saw some blood there," explained St. Clair.

Jones was taken to a Texas hospital by helicopter after the incident. An investigator on the case said Jones was released from the hospital Thursday and extradited to the Bryan County Jail.

The 12-year-old girl was not injured during the ordeal.

meowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

A pure texan cowgirl. Did her parents teach her how to shoot a gun?
loaded firearms are equally dangerous regardless of who is wielding it at a given time =^.^=

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

I for one fervently hope that whatever children you have, or may have in the future, are never faced with this type of situation. I wish that for everyone, but more so for those who feel teaching their children the means to defend themselves is just putting them further in the line of danger.

One should never begrudge a person defending themself.

The perp I'm sure had a eye opening moment on why his line of work is bad. I doubt he saw that flash of knowledge though being there was a door in the way.

Twelve yrs old is not to young to learn about fire arms. I think that was age I was introduce to firearms at Summer Camp in Boy Scouts.

thenoobbomb wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

Indeed.
It's just everyone here seems to assume guns and kids who have been properly educated and trained or instructed in the use of firearms are allright.

qualified that for you.

djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

I for one fervently hope that whatever children you have, or may have in the future, are never faced with this type of situation. I wish that for everyone, but more so for those who feel teaching their children the means to defend themselves is just putting them further in the line of danger.

One should never begrudge a person defending themself.

Im am not saying the mother was bad for letting the child defend herself, or that the girl was wrong for doing it, What im saying is that would not have been my call.

Hotsauce. You never know till you go through the experience and have the same options as the mom did. Its easy to trouble shoot and 2nd guess the mom after the incident and relate to what you would do in the same time frame.

 Jihadin wrote:
Hotsauce. You never know till you go through the experience and have the same options as the mom did. Its easy to trouble shoot and 2nd guess the mom after the incident and relate to what you would do in the same time frame.

That is exactly it. It's always easy to look back and say "this should have been done instead". It's always harder to try to put yourself in their shoes at that time and try to see it from their eyes.

Both the child and the parent were operating on pure terror when this went down. As a parent the simple thought of my children having to go through something like this makes me sick to my stomach. Keyboard commandoing the call afterwards is just pure BS. Hell... it's nearly every day lately that we've been hearing news about some child's body turning up after going missing. I sure as hell will make damn sure my children will know how to do everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen to them, and that will include teaching them the use of a fire arm.

 Jihadin wrote:
Hotsauce. You never know till you go through the experience and have the same options as the mom did. Its easy to trouble shoot and 2nd guess the mom after the incident and relate to what you would do in the same time frame.

Well hopefully I will never have to, Nor this family ever have to again or anyone i know.
Now Im off to study for a test on geology, YAY ROCKS.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

Easy, the people just get billed for it like anyone that goes to the Emergency Room that doesn't have insurance.

So they are thrown into black pit of our Healthcare system, the tender mercies of crippling debt

And lets just toss on any medical bills that officers or bystanders incurr as a result of the crime in question onto their tab while we are at it.


Perpetrator resists arrest, perp cracks a rib in the scuffle, officer suffers a torn bicep. perp is billed for his medical treatment and the officers medical treatment. He also is billed for any treatment he recieves while incarcerated.

So, in addition to any criminal charges he is sentanced for, he has many thousands of dollars in medical bills. Which he must pay even if the charges are later dropped. So its a double whammy.

At which point he is completely unable to pay such bills (prisoners make gak for wages), the hospital(s) write off the debt as normal and the taxpayers end up footing the bill anyway. What's changed?

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

Easy, the people just get billed for it like anyone that goes to the Emergency Room that doesn't have insurance.

So they are thrown into black pit of our Healthcare system, the tender mercies of crippling debt

And lets just toss on any medical bills that officers or bystanders incurr as a result of the crime in question onto their tab while we are at it.


Perpetrator resists arrest, perp cracks a rib in the scuffle, officer suffers a torn bicep. perp is billed for his medical treatment and the officers medical treatment. He also is billed for any treatment he recieves while incarcerated.

So, in addition to any criminal charges he is sentanced for, he has many thousands of dollars in medical bills. Which he must pay even if the charges are later dropped. So its a double whammy.

At which point he is completely unable to pay such bills (prisoners make gak for wages), the hospital(s) write off the debt as normal and the taxpayers end up footing the bill anyway. What's changed?

If the prisoner truly has nothing, then unfortunatly it will be a write off and the governement will foot the bill.

But if they do have something, anything, it can be liquidated to pay the bills. Car, house, bank accounts, etc...


I don't expect it will ever make the burden zero, but it will reduce the tax expenses on prisoner care if they pay what they can.

And in most cases, the perp will only serve for a period of time before being released. In which case he has some debt coming out of prison that he will have to work off, nothing really different from someone getting in an accident and having medical bills.

It won't make the government pay nothing for medical costs, but it will reduce the money spent if we wring the criminals for what they've got.

Hey, it might even make prison the deterrent it should be. Not only are your freedoms being restricted for some time, but you are also going to have a medical bill to pay off. That the government can take out of your personal property and savings.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

Easy, the people just get billed for it like anyone that goes to the Emergency Room that doesn't have insurance.

So they are thrown into black pit of our Healthcare system, the tender mercies of crippling debt

And lets just toss on any medical bills that officers or bystanders incurr as a result of the crime in question onto their tab while we are at it.


Perpetrator resists arrest, perp cracks a rib in the scuffle, officer suffers a torn bicep. perp is billed for his medical treatment and the officers medical treatment. He also is billed for any treatment he recieves while incarcerated.

So, in addition to any criminal charges he is sentanced for, he has many thousands of dollars in medical bills. Which he must pay even if the charges are later dropped. So its a double whammy.

At which point he is completely unable to pay such bills (prisoners make gak for wages), the hospital(s) write off the debt as normal and the taxpayers end up footing the bill anyway. What's changed?

If the prisoner truly has nothing, then unfortunatly it will be a write off and the governement will foot the bill.

But if they do have something, anything, it can be liquidated to pay the bills. Car, house, bank accounts, etc...


I don't expect it will ever make the burden zero, but it will reduce the tax expenses on prisoner care if they pay what they can.

And in most cases, the perp will only serve for a period of time before being released. In which case he has some debt coming out of prison that he will have to work off, nothing really different from someone getting in an accident and having medical bills.

It won't make the government pay nothing for medical costs, but it will reduce the money spent if we wring the criminals for what they've got.

Hey, it might even make prison the deterrent it should be. Not only are your freedoms being restricted for some time, but you are also going to have a medical bill to pay off. That the government can take out of your personal property and savings.

Before we go too much further, let me say that I am not against punishing criminals.

However, there is already some debate over whether our prison system actually does much more than earn corporations and politicians money. There's been a lot of talk lately about focusing more on rehabilitation than simply punishment. If a prisoner gets out of prison owning nothing (which happens quite often already), and can never hope to own anything for the forseeable future (because of massive debt) is he more or less likely to return to his criminal lifestyle?

Now we all know that being in debt doesn't necessarily mean you can't own stuff or plan for a future where your lifestyle isn't hand to mouth, but criminals are known for a lack of foresightedness and a skewed concept of risk vs. reward. It's quite likely that the ex-con, perceiving that he has no hope for a *real* life will simply return to criminality to pay for necessities and wants while ignoring his debts. He knows that if he gets caught he simply goes back to jail where all of his needs and many of his wants are readily available, and until then he gets to live in a manner of his own choosing.

A good compromise (which IMHO would never be implemented) would be to put said criminal to work for the length of his sentence in a capacity befitting his knowledge and skillset if any. If the convict has no skills or trade knowledge, he is taught on the job with an eye towards qualifying the inmate for any certifications needed to obtain an entry-level position in the chosen field. Sentences are doled out according to a metric which takes into account amount of debt incurred during the commission (hospital bills, police payrolls etc.) and prosecution (public defender, court fees, etc.) of the crime, and a reasonable wage assigned to a citizen with his same 'occupation', while acknowledging that too much incarceration can be detrimental to rehabilitation. No time off for good behaviour, no parole, just sentences of reasonable length, during which the convict has to work, and work productively, each and every day he's healthy. Once the term is served the debt is discharged completely.

Ideally, this would result in ex-cons who have a skillset that they can take to the job pool, who don't have to worry about some giant debt hanging over their heads, and can make a reasonable attempt to start a new, productive life.

Granted this plan isn't perfect, but it does IMHO have several inherent benefits.

1. The prisoners can work off their debts directly, learning skills while doing so.
2. Our 'blue collar' work pool is replenished, and maybe even some of the 'white collar' pool as well, depending on the convicts.
3. In theory, recidivism would be reduced, as the ex-con would then have a skill set.
4. The Government can save money on selected private industry contracts by requiring contractors to use convicts for certain positions, for the duration of the contract, and/or hire ex-cons for certain jobs, at 'probationary' wages for set amounts of time.
5. If 4. proves successful, companies would have a pool of pre-approved experienced workers to draw from for entry-level positions.


Of course this isn't perfect, there is the whole "Go to prison get a trade school education for free" mindset, and increased competition for non-criminal workers, and the fact that this would be most effective with minimum security prisoners, but I think that getting 'free' labor from a criminal seven days a week, for a period of several years, after which we produce skilled labor instead of just broke criminals would help offset a lot of worries for our country and economy.

 Nocturn wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Those incarcerated live better then those of us deployed

Not under Sheriff Joe.

I have a feeling that's about to change.

I'm glad I have the Dakka OT to remind me of how ignorant and naive some people can be.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm glad I have the Dakka OT to remind me of how ignorant and naive some people can be.

Dont confuse ignorance with someone of a different belief.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Guns are only dangerous when the people handling them are improperly using them.



Guns are no more dangerous then knives, cars, or any number of common household items. Dogs are MORE dangerous, more kids get hurt every year by dogs then by guns.

So THATS why all the armies of the world are armed with dogs and not guns. Makes sense as guns are clearly not dangerous if your properly using them. Unless your at the muzzle end.

OT there's clearly nothing wrong with 12 year old defending themselves with a gun in this type of situation. But it's also not wrong for others to state that this not the action they would take. The right to bear arms does not mean we have to.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

No, you're arguing it's better to leave the kid unprotected near dangerous PEOPLE.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

Maybe the parents were responsible enough to teach the girl gun safety?

Kid gaining access to a gun does not necessarily mean a bad thing if they had the proper training.

Good to hear a scumbag got what he deserved.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm glad I have the Dakka OT to remind me of how ignorant and naive some people can be.

Dont confuse ignorance with someone of a different belief.

Belief in something doesn't validate it. Particularly here.

 daedalus wrote:
Apparently the latter, because victimization is the new 'hip' in the US.

This moment of self-actualization might have ACTUALLY forced this child into realizing she's capable of influencing the world around her. God forbid.

Ugggh

this sums up the state of new york so well right now.

The state cares more about the criminal than it does about the victim.

When a cop tells you the best 3 defenses for a young woman are running, a cell phone and a whistle, it's a pretty fahkin pathetic.

And your congressman's response to the difficult access to getting a gun, taser or pepper spray is "New York law makers have the interest in the safety of the victims and criminals" says a lot.

Small update:

http://kfor.com/2012/10/21/charges-filed-against-burglar-shot-by-child/

Didn't read the 5 pages.
But rather then blaming the 12 year old to shoot a gun,
all can be avoided if the criminal wasn't doing any criminal activities.

Why give them so much power?

Who would win in a fight, this girl or the cop who tazed a blind guy?

 Valkyrie wrote:
If this was in the UK, the intruder would be able to sue for injuries, psychological damage, as well as compensation for being unable to return to his line of work. The girl's parents would be kept under supervision for leaving a gun in a way it can be used by a child, the child herself possibly being taken away and put into care.

/political rant.

Thats why you shoot them until the magazine is empty, then you hide while reloading. Didn't your mother teach you nuttin?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Good for the girl!

Intruder in my house would be dead.... 'jus saying.

IN the Frazzled household, the intruder is supper. Tbone be hungry!!!


In other news Rodney and Rusty surprised a deer this morning. When a wiener dog takes after a deer, even God stops to see what the hell just happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And you are making assumptions right there aswell. As far as we know, he was there just to rob the house.
And we dont know, from the sound of it, if she had enough tim to get the gun, and hide in the closet, she may have had enough time to get out of the house.

Don't have kids I take it. I don't generally want them running around. They can run into the bad guy. I want them hiding with the police coming.

Same to same for the Wife.
The Boy would just beat him to death for interfering with his internet time.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

Normally I agree, except in this circumstance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um, Couldnt the dog thing be more that dogs are more common in a household then a gun? I mean i know plenty of people that have dogs bu no guns.

Thats because you don't live in Texas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Hotsauce. You never know till you go through the experience and have the same options as the mom did. Its easy to trouble shoot and 2nd guess the mom after the incident and relate to what you would do in the same time frame.

Well hopefully I will never have to, Nor this family ever have to again or anyone i know.
Now Im off to study for a test on geology, YAY ROCKS.

Geology rocks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

No, you're arguing it's better to leave the kid unprotected near dangerous PEOPLE.

Respectfully, he's arguing that the course of action would be for the girl to get out. Thats not a bad thing. It depends utterly and completely, on the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Who would win in a fight, this girl or the cop who tazed a blind guy?

The girl of course. No British copper can stand against the might of a little Southern girl. They don't need guns, they'll just beat you to death with a pot. We raise 'em tough here.

Here's a brief interview with aforementioned 12 year old.

http://kfor.com/2012/10/18/preteen-shoots-intruder-in-home/

Kendra earns my BAMF of the week award if I haven't mentioned that before. Also shot in the shoulder, so I rescind my earlier comments about not shooting center of mass. That's pretty good for through a door.

Alright not to sound like a whack but she would have been raped. SHe's going to beak necks when she gets older

Even a miss would be enough. A bullet through a door would be a good surprise for a bad guy and result in fleeing.

Getting a hit at all is just bonus.

 Jihadin wrote:
Alright not to sound like a whack but she would have been raped. SHe's going to beak necks when she gets older

Life taker and a heart breaker, sounds like a southern girl to me.

I bet NO ONE screws with her at school any more eh?

"No man, don't screw with Kendra, she shot a guy!"

"Wait what!? Dang..."

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm glad I have the Dakka OT to remind me of how ignorant and naive some people can be.

Dont confuse ignorance with someone of a different belief.

You're advocating ignorance. You're like the people who oppose sex education based on the erroneous belief that an uninformed child will know to avoid hazardous behaviours.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm glad I have the Dakka OT to remind me of how ignorant and naive some people can be.

Dont confuse ignorance with someone of a different belief.

You're advocating ignorance. You're like the people who oppose sex education based on the erroneous belief that an uninformed child will know to avoid hazardous behaviours.

Not necessarily.

I can imagine that there are people who support training a child in the safe use of guns and taking children to the gun range, but who also believe in keeping the gun non-accessible to children in the house.

Just like believing in sex education doesn't mean that you have to keep bowls of condoms in your house for your kids to have access to.

I doubt that the child has ready access to the gun, as previously noted. But assuming that she was properly trained, and fearing for her child's life, why would the mother not tell her the code to give her access the the gun that may have saved her life?

 Jihadin wrote:
Alright not to sound like a whack but she would have been raped. SHe's going to beak necks when she gets older

It does sound like he was after her.
And from the look of the house, running wasn't an option, if i had a gun i may have told my daughter to get it as well if i lived in that area. But it also doesn't say whether she was trained or not.
But i live in the suburbs, where houses are feet away, and you can easily get around the back or front without someone seeing you.

 d-usa wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm glad I have the Dakka OT to remind me of how ignorant and naive some people can be.

Dont confuse ignorance with someone of a different belief.

You're advocating ignorance. You're like the people who oppose sex education based on the erroneous belief that an uninformed child will know to avoid hazardous behaviours.

Not necessarily.

I can imagine that there are people who support training a child in the safe use of guns and taking children to the gun range, but who also believe in keeping the gun non-accessible to children in the house.

Just like believing in sex education doesn't mean that you have to keep bowls of condoms in your house for your kids to have access to.

It is a scary day when I agree with everything D-USa says. My bowels ar suddenly acting up, in a most peculiar fashion.

Just had to double down on those bean burrito's eh Frazz

 Frazzled wrote:

Intruder in my house would be dead.... 'jus saying.

IN the Frazzled household, the intruder is supper. Tbone be hungry!!!


In other news Rodney and Rusty surprised a deer this morning. When a wiener dog takes after a deer, even God stops to see what the hell just happened.

 Lordhat wrote:
Real gun control starts and ends with education.

The is the best thing I've seen on Dakka all day. Completely agree with it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Intruder in my house would be dead.... 'jus saying.

IN the Frazzled household, the intruder is supper. Tbone be hungry!!!


In other news Rodney and Rusty surprised a deer this morning. When a wiener dog takes after a deer, even God stops to see what the hell just happened.

Frazzled, you dress your dogs in sweaters?
Also frazzle, you a nice respectful man, or dog, im not sure witch at this point, Respecting your opponents view point and intervening when someone insults them, you are like ghandi if he had wiener dogs.