Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Asterios wrote:


and what if your kids were with you and you were unaware if the intruder was armed or not?

Get them the hell out of that house.

Guys, you're straying from the topic. Remember, this is about Mom obtaining the freshest ingredients for her new kidney pie.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and what if your kids were with you and you were unaware if the intruder was armed or not?

Get them the hell out of that house.

so the intruder can attack you before you even get out? or possibly shoot or stab you? remember she did not notice the intruder till she went to her kids room where she found him hiding.

Asterios wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

She then discovered the person was her 27-year-old daughter, according to a news release from police. The daughter had been visiting from North Carolina and didn't live in the home, Roberts said.

"Had been visiting" is used twice in the story. Past perfect tense is used to show something that was ongoing in the past. It's certainly possible that the writer used incorrect grammar...

Edit:
Remembered that usage in this context is a stative verb. Something to denote an event that started in the past and continued to another point in the past.

put the part in bold and underlined that you missed., notice it didn't state she was staying there, just visiting

So? Out of curiosity. When you stay with relatives, do you ring the bell every time you leave the home and then return? Personally, I've never felt the need to ring a bell at my parents' house when they know I'm staying there and I've been there.

Getting a bit off topic here so I'll leave it here.

 agnosto wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

She then discovered the person was her 27-year-old daughter, according to a news release from police. The daughter had been visiting from North Carolina and didn't live in the home, Roberts said.

"Had been visiting" is used twice in the story. Past perfect tense is used to show something that was ongoing in the past. It's certainly possible that the writer used incorrect grammar...

Edit:
Remembered that usage in this context is a stative verb. Something to denote an event that started in the past and continued to another point in the past.

put the part in bold and underlined that you missed., notice it didn't state she was staying there, just visiting

So? Out of curiosity. When you stay with relatives, do you ring the bell every time you leave the home and then return? Personally, I've never felt the need to ring a bell at my parents' house when they know I'm staying there and I've been there.

Getting a bit off topic here so I'll leave it here.

where in the article did it say she was staying with her mother?

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and what if your kids were with you and you were unaware if the intruder was armed or not?

Get them the hell out of that house.

so the intruder can attack you before you even get out? or possibly shoot or stab you? remember she did not notice the intruder till she went to her kids room where she found him hiding.

And if she missed and he was armed and returned fire? With her kids standing around?

The first step should be to evacuate the children to reduce the risk of them being caught in a crossfire.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and what if your kids were with you and you were unaware if the intruder was armed or not?

Get them the hell out of that house.

so the intruder can attack you before you even get out? or possibly shoot or stab you? remember she did not notice the intruder till she went to her kids room where she found him hiding.

And if she missed and he was armed and returned fire? With her kids standing around?

The first step should be to evacuate the children to reduce the risk of them being caught in a crossfire.

I'd like to think that someone in an enclosed space of say 10' will not miss their target, but not being you I cannot say the same of you since you think its very likely you would miss since you seem to think it is an option. so in your case yes you should not have a gun since you would be more of a danger to yourself then the intruder.

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Guys, unless you shoot first without asking questions anyone in your home that you're not expecting, up to and including your own children, you're a gutless liberal who deserves to be a victim.

Duh.

You sir, should go back to your bridge.

We've got the OP projecting that there's no such thing as a bad shoot. I'm not the troll here.

I'm not sure that is at all any indication of the OP saying that. The article linked, and his statement is that this shoot is justified, as the information is reported. There are no good or bad shoots, only justified or not justified. Only those that have pulled the trigger would understand that though. Your quote was inflammatory and troll worthy.

Four examples of parents shooting their kids by accident, hand waved away as "stupid in a no stupid zone".

I used 'bad shoot' because it's easier to type than 'not justified' I thought that was the vernacular.

well lets see a kid goes to school then comes right back coming thru the basement, not smart, a daughter shot by her cop father snuck out late at night, then tried sneaking back in thru the garage, you call that smart?

sounds like mentally unstable paremts trying to be cool and shoot people for no good reason. The parents should be shot afterwards murdering someone because they suprise you is not an excuse it is still man slaughter.

OgreChubbs wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Guys, unless you shoot first without asking questions anyone in your home that you're not expecting, up to and including your own children, you're a gutless liberal who deserves to be a victim.

Duh.

You sir, should go back to your bridge.

We've got the OP projecting that there's no such thing as a bad shoot. I'm not the troll here.

I'm not sure that is at all any indication of the OP saying that. The article linked, and his statement is that this shoot is justified, as the information is reported. There are no good or bad shoots, only justified or not justified. Only those that have pulled the trigger would understand that though. Your quote was inflammatory and troll worthy.

Four examples of parents shooting their kids by accident, hand waved away as "stupid in a no stupid zone".

I used 'bad shoot' because it's easier to type than 'not justified' I thought that was the vernacular.

well lets see a kid goes to school then comes right back coming thru the basement, not smart, a daughter shot by her cop father snuck out late at night, then tried sneaking back in thru the garage, you call that smart?

sounds like mentally unstable paremts trying to be cool and shoot people for no good reason. The parents should be shot afterwards murdering someone because they suprise you is not an excuse it is still man slaughter.

No, that isn't manslaughter, not even close.

OgreChubbs wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Guys, unless you shoot first without asking questions anyone in your home that you're not expecting, up to and including your own children, you're a gutless liberal who deserves to be a victim.

Duh.

You sir, should go back to your bridge.

We've got the OP projecting that there's no such thing as a bad shoot. I'm not the troll here.

I'm not sure that is at all any indication of the OP saying that. The article linked, and his statement is that this shoot is justified, as the information is reported. There are no good or bad shoots, only justified or not justified. Only those that have pulled the trigger would understand that though. Your quote was inflammatory and troll worthy.

Four examples of parents shooting their kids by accident, hand waved away as "stupid in a no stupid zone".

I used 'bad shoot' because it's easier to type than 'not justified' I thought that was the vernacular.

well lets see a kid goes to school then comes right back coming thru the basement, not smart, a daughter shot by her cop father snuck out late at night, then tried sneaking back in thru the garage, you call that smart?

sounds like mentally unstable paremts trying to be cool and shoot people for no good reason. The parents should be shot afterwards murdering someone because they suprise you is not an excuse it is still man slaughter.

so you are saying if there is an intruder you should just ignore it, then act like its an unarmed family member? good luck with that one. welcome to America where criminals have more rights then law abiding citizens, where things are getting so bad people are breaking into houses during the day. but hey, if you ignore that sound and that unknown and don't shoot, you will feel better about yourself as they put a bullet in your head., but don't worry you will die with a clear conscious knowing you could have kept your family safe but you didn't and allowed yourself to get shot first.

as it goes those are tragedies, both of which could have been prevented if the kids did not get stupid by doing the odd stuff, like sneaking out at night and then trying to sneak back in or entering thru a basement of all places. when things are done out of the norm accidents happen and in this case very unfortunate accidents.

I'm starting to think this thread was started just to get people to argue about firearms.

Prestor Jon wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 redleger wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
Guys, unless you shoot first without asking questions anyone in your home that you're not expecting, up to and including your own children, you're a gutless liberal who deserves to be a victim.

Duh.

You sir, should go back to your bridge.

We've got the OP projecting that there's no such thing as a bad shoot. I'm not the troll here.

I'm not sure that is at all any indication of the OP saying that. The article linked, and his statement is that this shoot is justified, as the information is reported. There are no good or bad shoots, only justified or not justified. Only those that have pulled the trigger would understand that though. Your quote was inflammatory and troll worthy.

Four examples of parents shooting their kids by accident, hand waved away as "stupid in a no stupid zone".

I used 'bad shoot' because it's easier to type than 'not justified' I thought that was the vernacular.

well lets see a kid goes to school then comes right back coming thru the basement, not smart, a daughter shot by her cop father snuck out late at night, then tried sneaking back in thru the garage, you call that smart?

sounds like mentally unstable paremts trying to be cool and shoot people for no good reason. The parents should be shot afterwards murdering someone because they suprise you is not an excuse it is still man slaughter.

No, that isn't manslaughter, not even close.

Ahhh you scared me shoot shoot oops not my fault. Yes that is man slaughter, they had a right to be there and were murdered for no oer reason then someone with a mental health issue wanting to murder someone. If you see a threat to your life when non is present and you murder someone thats either third degreer or man slaughter. They were not a threat and unarmed, which means shooting them is way to much force. You wonder why cops shoot people running away? Hell you should be more worried about suprising someone and them picking you off which is apperantly all good.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm starting to think this thread was started just to get people to argue about firearms.

actually it was started that there are times when guns are needed and used, I just did not expect people to go defending the guy who broke into the house and was hiding in a kids room. or accusing a woman for defending herself and her kids.

Asterios wrote:


I'd like to think that someone in an enclosed space of say 10' will not miss their target, but not being you I cannot say the same of you since you think its very likely you would miss since you seem to think it is an option. so in your case yes you should not have a gun since you would be more of a danger to yourself then the intruder.

What you'd like to think and what actually is the case is not necessarily the same thing. What are those stats that often get brought up about how inaccurate the police are?

Had the woman in question ever fired her weapon before, for example? That could have a drastic effect on her likelihood of hitting a target even at such close range if for example she did not adequately brace against the recoil, not to mention the effects of panic, adrenaline etc.

OgreChubbs wrote:

Ahhh you scared me shoot shoot oops not my fault. Yes that is man slaughter, they had a right to be there and were murdered for no oer reason then someone with a mental health issue wanting to murder someone. If you see a threat to your life when non is present and you murder someone thats either third degreer or man slaughter. They were not a threat and unarmed, which means shooting them is way to much force. You wonder why cops shoot people running away? Hell you should be more worried about suprising someone and them picking you off which is apperantly all good.

its obvious you have never been in such a situation where a split second can be the difference between life or death.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


I'd like to think that someone in an enclosed space of say 10' will not miss their target, but not being you I cannot say the same of you since you think its very likely you would miss since you seem to think it is an option. so in your case yes you should not have a gun since you would be more of a danger to yourself then the intruder.

What you'd like to think and what actually is the case is not necessarily the same thing. What are those stats that often get brought up about how inaccurate the police are?

Had the woman in question ever fired her weapon before, for example? That would have a drastic effect on her likelihood of hitting a target even at such close range, not to mention the effects of panic, adrenaline etc.

but you do not know that, me myself I can safely say I can hit my target within 10', in fact most people with even general firearms knowledge could do so,

furthermore your argument is mute since she did shoot the intruder and shot him dead, so that kind of blows your theory out the window, just because you cannot shoot your target from 10' away doesn't mean everyone else can't.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm starting to think this thread was started just to get people to argue about firearms.

If it helps I discovered you can barbeque bacon in a coal fired grill over multiple sheets of aluminum in about the same length of time as frying it, except its tender and smoked instead. Tried making some Saturday for church and it was the best bacon I ever had.

To tie it into the subject, people are just long ham...

OgreChubbs wrote:
and were murdered for no oer reason then someone with a mental health issue wanting to murder someone.

Got links that show this was the case?

Psych evals maybe?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


I'd like to think that someone in an enclosed space of say 10' will not miss their target, but not being you I cannot say the same of you since you think its very likely you would miss since you seem to think it is an option. so in your case yes you should not have a gun since you would be more of a danger to yourself then the intruder.

What you'd like to think and what actually is the case is not necessarily the same thing. What are those stats that often get brought up about how inaccurate the police are?

Had the woman in question ever fired her weapon before, for example? That could have a drastic effect on her likelihood of hitting a target even at such close range if for example she did not adequately brace against the recoil, not to mention the effects of panic, adrenaline etc.

Well, even if she had NEVER fired a gun before, it would seem in this case she did, and hit her target at least once in a place that ended him.

 Frazzled wrote:


To tie it into the subject, people are just long ham...

long pig

as it goes why someone could defend the intruder or blame the woman for defending her life and her childrens lives is beyond me.

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
and were murdered for no oer reason then someone with a mental health issue wanting to murder someone.

Got links that show this was the case?

Psych evals maybe?

high school kid in your basement you shoot dead, or a teenage girl in your garage again shot dead. Somehow I doubt a teenage girl in my garage would need to be shot unless I was looking for a problem.

You hear someone in your garage lock the door entering your house call the cops.

No you enter the garage with a gun ( looking for a fight)

There is no way the cop father said anything or the daughter would of said something.

So he entered with the sole purpose of killing someone.

This mother had a gun and walked through her house looking for a fight rather then doing the smart thing. Grab your kids get out of danger and call the cops. Stuff can be replaced but my kids cant, she went through the house going to murder this man while her 2 kids where still in danger. Then she would of had to walk into the room look at the man aim a gun and murder him. That is sadistic and shows how mental she is, it was not self defense me or him it was looking down the gun aiming it at him and shooting til he stopped moving. Then after making sure he is dead calling the cops.

The only people in danger where people she placed in danger. There was no need to engage with this person and risk you being shot and your kids left alone with a stranger. This is just an example of looking for a fight.

This thread got very strange. Bacon was good though.

Asterios wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm starting to think this thread was started just to get people to argue about firearms.

actually it was started that there are times when guns are needed and used, I just did not expect people to go defending the guy who broke into the house and was hiding in a kids room. or accusing a woman for defending herself and her kids.

Look, at the end of the day a man is dead. The existence of a real thinking feeling human being has been annihilated in it's entirety. No matter if the intruder was actually a predator, some poor confused soul, an idiot looking for suicide-by-homeowner, or some druggie tripping out of his damn head: Someone is dead. For some of us that's always going to be regrettable thing.

It's not about defending anyone and it's not about condemning anyone for self defense. It's about seeing that a situation played out, resulted in a corpse and saying "That sucks. Wish things could have been different". It's about not spiking the damn football at just how awesome it was that somebody got killed. A killing in self defense is still a killing. It isn't a good thing.

Certainly it is quite possible that it was the least of all evils that could have happened that day, we don't know. However it simply being the least-bad outcome does not make it a good one. That doesn't put the frightened woman in the wrong and it doesn't elevate the intruder. It's just saying that when violence happens the take away lesson, whatever it is isn't "Boy howdy guns are great".

OgreChubbs wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
and were murdered for no oer reason then someone with a mental health issue wanting to murder someone.

Got links that show this was the case?

Psych evals maybe?

high school kid in your basement you shoot dead, or a teenage girl in your garage again shot dead. Somehow I doubt a teenage girl in my garage would need to be shot unless I was looking for a problem.

You hear someone in your garage lock the door entering your house call the cops.

No you enter the garage with a gun ( looking for a fight)

There is no way the cop father said anything or the daughter would of said something.

So he entered with the sole purpose of killing someone.

This mother had a gun and walked through her house looking for a fight rather then doing the smart thing. Grab your kids get out of danger and call the cops. Stuff can be replaced but my kids cant, she went through the house going to murder this man while her 2 kids where still in danger. Then she would of had to walk into the room look at the man aim a gun and murder him. That is sadistic and shows how mental she is, it was not self defense me or him it was looking down the gun aiming it at him and shooting til he stopped moving. Then after making sure he is dead calling the cops.

The only people in danger where people she placed in danger. There was no need to engage with this person and risk you being shot and your kids left alone with a stranger. This is just an example of looking for a fight.

So, in short, no, you don't have anything to back up your assertion. Horrific mistakes are a lot different than some mentally ill person desiring to murder folks. Pretty sure if you are honest you can see that.

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
and were murdered for no oer reason then someone with a mental health issue wanting to murder someone.

Got links that show this was the case?

Psych evals maybe?

high school kid in your basement you shoot dead, or a teenage girl in your garage again shot dead. Somehow I doubt a teenage girl in my garage would need to be shot unless I was looking for a problem.

You hear someone in your garage lock the door entering your house call the cops.

No you enter the garage with a gun ( looking for a fight)

There is no way the cop father said anything or the daughter would of said something.

So he entered with the sole purpose of killing someone.

This mother had a gun and walked through her house looking for a fight rather then doing the smart thing. Grab your kids get out of danger and call the cops. Stuff can be replaced but my kids cant, she went through the house going to murder this man while her 2 kids where still in danger. Then she would of had to walk into the room look at the man aim a gun and murder him. That is sadistic and shows how mental she is, it was not self defense me or him it was looking down the gun aiming it at him and shooting til he stopped moving. Then after making sure he is dead calling the cops.

The only people in danger where people she placed in danger. There was no need to engage with this person and risk you being shot and your kids left alone with a stranger. This is just an example of looking for a fight.

So, in short, no, you don't have anything to back up your assertion. Horrific mistakes are a lot different than some mentally ill person desiring to murder folks. Pretty sure if you are honest you can see that.

Actually I see a huge difference of someone with a mental health issue who doesnt know better or thinking they are right, they can be forgiven and helped.

But someone who knows what they are doing walking threw the house with a gun to aim at someone and shoot until they are dead, there is no question in my mind who is really wrong here and is truely a sick person.

But I am moving on this just shows me why there are so many cop shootings people are gun crazy and think they have the right to end lives when they feel wronged. So I am moving on and avoiding dangerious places peace.

 Chongara wrote:

Look, at the end of the day a man is dead. The existence of a real thinking feeling human being has been annihilated in it's entirety. No matter if the intruder was actually a predator, some poor confused soul, an idiot looking for suicide-by-homeowner, or some druggie tripping out of his damn head: Someone is dead. For some of us that's always going to be regrettable thing.

It's not about defending anyone and it's not about condemning anyone for self defense. It's about seeing that a situation played out, resulted in a corpse and saying "That sucks. Wish things could have been different". It's about not spiking the damn football at just how awesome it was that somebody got killed. A killing in self defense is still a killing. It isn't a good thing.

Certainly it is quite possible that it was the least of all evils that could have happened that day, we don't know. However it simply being the least-bad outcome does not make it a good one. That doesn't put the frightened woman in the wrong and it doesn't elevate the intruder. It's just saying that when violence happens the take away lesson, whatever it is isn't "Boy howdy guns are great".

no what happened here was a mother defended herself and her kids, nobody forced that guy into her house, nobody forced that guy to hide in her kids room and personally I believe he got what he deserved. and I applaud her for doing a hard thing to defend her life and the lives of her children, you can claim all you want we do not know why he was in there, but when it comes right down to it, he was an intruder and an intruder hiding in a childs bedroom. maybe if more laws were enacted to give people the right to defend their property maybe, just maybe we wouldn't have so many criminals breaking into homes these days, but ever since those rights were removed from homeowners more and more criminals start showing up.

Asterios wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

Look, at the end of the day a man is dead. The existence of a real thinking feeling human being has been annihilated in it's entirety. No matter if the intruder was actually a predator, some poor confused soul, an idiot looking for suicide-by-homeowner, or some druggie tripping out of his damn head: Someone is dead. For some of us that's always going to be regrettable thing.

It's not about defending anyone and it's not about condemning anyone for self defense. It's about seeing that a situation played out, resulted in a corpse and saying "That sucks. Wish things could have been different". It's about not spiking the damn football at just how awesome it was that somebody got killed. A killing in self defense is still a killing. It isn't a good thing.

Certainly it is quite possible that it was the least of all evils that could have happened that day, we don't know. However it simply being the least-bad outcome does not make it a good one. That doesn't put the frightened woman in the wrong and it doesn't elevate the intruder. It's just saying that when violence happens the take away lesson, whatever it is isn't "Boy howdy guns are great".

no what happened here was a mother defended herself and her kids, nobody forced that guy into her house, nobody forced that guy to hide in her kids room and personally I believe he got what he deserved. and I applaud her for doing a hard thing to defend her life and the lives of her children, you can claim all you want we do not know why he was in there, but when it comes right down to it, he was an intruder and an intruder hiding in a childs bedroom. maybe if more laws were enacted to give people the right to defend their property maybe, just maybe we wouldn't have so many criminals breaking into homes these days, but ever since those rights were removed from homeowners more and more criminals start showing up.

Fine. You're the kind of person who can see a death and applaud it. Good for you. There's certainly no arguing with that.

He's not applauding it. He i saying it was justified. That is a legal term. You're the one putting a morality spin on it.

 Frazzled wrote:
He's not applauding it. He i saying it was justified. That is a legal term. You're the one putting a morality spin on it.

He literally said he thought the guy got what he deserves and applauds her for killing him. His words. Not mine.

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's not applauding it. He i saying it was justified. That is a legal term. You're the one putting a morality spin on it.

He literally said he thought the guy got what he deserves and applauds her for killing him. His words. Not mine.

Oh in that case carry on. I will now return to sweet dreams of smoked bacon. Would bacon wrapped kielbasa be too much?

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's not applauding it. He i saying it was justified. That is a legal term. You're the one putting a morality spin on it.

He literally said he thought the guy got what he deserves and applauds her for killing him. His words. Not mine.

it was justified so yes i'm applauding it, if given the choice of one criminal or 3 innocents, I will pick the 3 innocents over the criminal any day of the week, he was breaking the law and placed her and her childrens lives at risk so she did what she had to to save herself and her kids.

We're heading for a locked thread - real soon.

We're also heading towards warnings and/or suspensions.

Rule #1 is BE POLITE.

Rule #2 is STAY ON TOPIC.