Woman Shoots Intruder Dead

[Caitlin.ann]

At 12:30 Donna Jackson woke up to her dog barking like someone was in her backyard. She went to to her backdoor and sure enough she was face to face with a man trying to break in.
"Oh he's getting ready to break the window," said Jackson to the dispatcher.
Jackson immediately went and got her shotgun, hoping an officer would get there so she didn't have to use it.
But the man trying to break in had other plans, he then grabbed some patio furniture and broke the back door.
"Dear god hurry. I haven't shot yet. Hurry," said Jackson.
"Can you get...oh my god. Ma'am, do you have a cordless phone," said the dispatcher.
"I shot him," said Jackson.
Jackson shot Billy Dean Riley right in the chest, killing him instantly.
The shooting is being investigated as a homicide but the sheriff says Jackson did what she had to do.

Link (http://www.ksbitv.com/news/78562572.html)

Maybe its the way I was raised but I don't blame her a damn bit! I hope the judge drops the case.

[sleepycat]

This will never make it to court, not in OK. I'll be amazed if there are any charges filed.

[watersprite]

Link (http://www.ksbitv.com/news/78562572.html)

Maybe its the way I was raised but I don't blame her a damn bit! I hope the judge drops the case.
That woman has every right to protect herself in her own home. ESPECIALLY if police did not get to her. I am not dying for the first cutbacks being police services.

[Morgane]

I would have done the same thing.

[aranarose]

Self-protection. Even after seeing she had a gun, and was on the phone with police, he kept trying to get in. Which means he very likely knew that by the time the police got there, he could be finished with whatever he wanted, and been long gone.

[ShadowcatX]

Thankfully Oklahoma has the stand your ground / make my day / whatever you want to call it law. Its one of the few things I'm proud of my state for.

[Caitlin.ann]

Well they think he was on drugs so there probably wasn't a lot of actual thinking. But even so you don't know what the guys on, etc...better safe than sorry.

[watersprite]

I don't plan on running a tox screen on anyone throwing a chair through my window to get in. The evidence is there. She should never be charged for protecting herself. I will do the same thing. I have a gun with a laser site on it. I took classes and am licensed to carry it. I will use it on anyone trying to gain entry in to my house without authorization. Everyone I know calls me when they get here and I look at the cameras to make sure it is them. We are disabled. We protect ourselves. Our doors and windows are well locked and barred.

[Laisrean]

This is why guns should be legal. If she didn't have that gun she would have been raped and/or killed. Anyone who is against guns needs to realize her death would have been on their hands.

[1111]

Good for her. :thumbsup:

[Infinite Grey]

This is why guns should be legal. If she didn't have that gun she would have been raped and/or killed. Anyone who is against guns needs to realize her death would have been on their hands.

Oh, to know everything - how does that feel Lais?

[Nicholas]

Don't blame her, I'm more for the blunt objects though.

Seriously the guy breaking into my house is going to end up having hundreds of pounds of fossil rock thrown at him and if that does not do him in a nice sharp blade or geology hammer will...

[Infinite Grey]

I don't plan on running a tox screen on anyone throwing a chair through my window to get in. The evidence is there. She should never be charged for protecting herself. I will do the same thing. I have a gun with a laser site on it. I took classes and am licensed to carry it. I will use it on anyone trying to gain entry in to my house without authorization. Everyone I know calls me when they get here and I look at the cameras to make sure it is them. We are disabled. We protect ourselves. Our doors and windows are well locked and barred.

I'm sorry... but how do you live like that? :ack:

[watersprite]

I'm sorry... but how do you live like that? :ack:
Our neighborhood has had some recent "busting in" crimes. All of the family have guns for protection, and we all know to call each other first. We have a lot of outside solar lighting and motion sensor light, along with door cameras. so does the elderly lady living behind us. Mostly because we are all disabled. We do all our shopping in daylight. At night, we prefer to be safe in our home. We also have an alarm system. For use when we are home and when we aren't. There are people that will pray on those that they perceive as vulnerable. The disabled, the elderly, any "easy" target. it happens all the time.
We don't want to live like this. Mostly, we don't. We open our windows and get good air like anybody else. During the day. We go to matinees because they are cheaper. There is no sense in letting ourselves be victims.
We also save energy. Recycle and reuse. Share our gardens' bounties. Our neighborhood of Seniors has a neighborhood watch. We all take care of each other on this block.

[Infinite Grey]

Our neighborhood has had some recent "busting in" crimes. All of the family have guns for protection, and we all know to call each other first. We have a lot of outside solar lighting and motion sensor light, along with door cameras. so does the elderly lady living behind us. Mostly because we are all disabled. We do all our shopping in daylight. At night, we prefer to be safe in our home. We also have an alarm system. For use when we are home and when we aren't. There are people that will pray on those that they perceive as vulnerable. The disabled, the elderly, any "easy" target. it happens all the time.
We don't want to live like this. Mostly, we don't. We open our windows and get good air like anybody else. During the day. We go to matinees because they are cheaper. There is no sense in letting ourselves be victims.
We also save energy. Recycle and reuse. Share our gardens' bounties. Our neighborhood of Seniors has a neighborhood watch. We tall take care of each other on this block.

The issues remains, that you feel a need to arm yourself for the purposes of protection. I would move from an area for less.

[watersprite]

The issues remains, that you feel a need to arm yourself for the purposes of protection. I would move from an area for less.
This is my house. I own it. I am not going to let some thugs chase me off. They know we are armed in this block and the two surrounding us. So do the local police. They encourage it. Being in Texas, most of us have been armed for some time. I grew up with most of these Seniors' kids. We all went to the same schools. We are finding that being well lit and well alarmed keeps us safer. None of us have had to shoot anybody yet.

[BearDancing]

:hairred:..........:hairred:............:hairred:

[[V]]

The police seem to have this sort of complex where they feel only they are authorized to kill a man with a gun.

If she felt like committing a homicide right before getting robed/raped/attacked, then god damnit that's her right!

[memnoch]

The issues remains, that you feel a need to arm yourself for the purposes of protection. I would move from an area for less.

I was with you originally thinking that the paranoia and victimization would be a horrible life to live, but the protection for self defense I understand

[TeamTwig]

I was with you originally thinking that the paranoia and victimization would be a horrible life to live, but the protection for self defense I understand

I agree with this also - I am all for personal protection. We have guns at our house, and I know that I would use one if I felt that I had no other option. I also live in a pretty quiet, yuppy subdivision - however - if I ever felt that I had to have security cameras on my home, I'm moving. :(

[Æon Flux]

Meh, if you can't shoot to maim, don't shoot at all.

I realize that in some situations it was probably called for to defend herself, but you never know what is happening...
Like that guy who was drunk and had lost his keys, tried to get in through the window, turns out he was at the house next to his and his neighbor shot him dead.
It's so strange that people keep yelling about the "gun to protect oneself" when there are a bunch of other countries where guns aren't legal for private people to own and don't miss it.

There's no problem with kids accidentally shooting themselves, there are definitely less problems with kids shooting other kids...

People are looking at this from the wrong perspective.
It's like taking a big stiff drink every time you feel bad, it just covers up the initial problem and will, eventually, lead to even bigger ones.

You're applying a bad treatment to a symptom and not considering the underlying cause at all.

[memnoch]

Meh, if you can't shoot to maim, don't shoot at all.

I realize that in some situations it was probably called for to defend herself, but you never know what is happening...
Like that guy who was drunk and had lost his keys, tried to get in through the window, turns out he was at the house next to his and his neighbor shot him dead.
It's so strange that people keep yelling about the "gun to protect oneself" when there are a bunch of other countries where guns aren't legal for private people to own and don't miss it.

There's no problem with kids accidentally shooting themselves, there are definitely less problems with kids shooting other kids...

People are looking at this from the wrong perspective.
It's like taking a big stiff drink every time you feel bad, it just covers up the initial problem and will, eventually, lead to even bigger ones.

You're applying a bad treatment to a symptom and not considering the underlying cause at all.

I disagree for several reasons. The first being that while in some countries it may be better not to have firearms for self defense, it is a cultural case, just because it may work in one country doesn't mean it will work in another. There are countries in which guns are legal that do not have the underlying problems, Switzerland comes to mind. However, in the U.S. the reality is we live in a culture in which crime rates are relatively high, and guns are prevalent and have been for 300 years. By making them illegal you are only removing guns from people who would use them for proper defense and leaving them in the hands of people who disregard law. Furthermore in our culture criminals admit to fear of victims causing problems. In short our criminals fear gun owners and look for victims least likely to be armed or put up a fight. Looking and being armed is a valid prevention from an individual standpoint. This doesn't fix the problem of crime, but neither would making guns illegal, and until the problem is fixed it is really a moot point. The problem is there is no silver bullet cure to fixing crimes in America.

[Æon Flux]

I disagree for several reasons. The first being that while in some countries it may be better not to have firearms for self defense, it is a cultural case, just because it may work in one country doesn't mean it will work in another. There are countries in which guns are legal that do not have the underlying problems, Switzerland comes to mind. However, in the U.S. the reality is we live in a culture in which crime rates are relatively high, and guns are prevalent and have been for 300 years. By making them illegal you are only removing guns from people who would use them for proper defense and leaving them in the hands of people who disregard law. Furthermore in our culture criminals admit to fear of victims causing problems. In short our criminals fear gun owners and look for victims least likely to be armed or put up a fight. Looking and being armed is a valid prevention from an individual standpoint. This doesn't fix the problem of crime, but neither would making guns illegal, and until the problem is fixed it is really a moot point. The problem is there is no silver bullet cure to fixing crimes in America.

Playing the cultural card isn't really in your best interest because that's basically validating all other cultures odd and strange quirks.
I'm not saying that you should make it illegal just like that, however I do think that the situation as it is right now doesn't seem to be working at all. You've probably got more people dying because of the legal guns than you would without.

There is never one quick solution for fixing problems with crimes, but unfortunately it doesn't even seem like people are trying anymore.
Just let people do what they do, but if they do it we'll kill them.

I'm also pointing out that shooting to kill first off isn't something even police officers are supposed to do, especially not when the other person is unarmed.

Criminals always look for the person most likely to make the least hassle, unless they're out of their mind of drugs that is. You don't even have to be armed with a gun to make enough problem for them to let you go.
Home alarms, personal alarms, pepper spray, a big bat placed in your home... what I'm saying is that maybe guns aren't the glorious savior so many seem to think it is.

[memnoch]

Playing the cultural card isn't really in your best interest because that's basically validating all other cultures odd and strange quirks.
I'm not saying that you should make it illegal just like that, however I do think that the situation as it is right now doesn't seem to be working at all. You've probably got more people dying because of the legal guns than you would without.

actually there are studies in the states showing drops in crimes related to less restrictive gun laws and increased crimes with more restrictive gun laws. So while your theory about people dying because of legal guns is valid, it would be a very hard theory to prove.


There is never one quick solution for fixing problems with crimes, but unfortunately it doesn't even seem like people are trying anymore.
Just let people do what they do, but if they do it we'll kill them.

On a national level I could see how it would appear that way, but crime on a state, county, and city level are always top issues for the people. Politicians careers are made and destroyed on that one issue. So it is something that we are trying to fix, just not at a national level. Part of the reasoning for not trying at a national level is the 10th amendment, the federal government has limited power when it comes to crime prevention.


I'm also pointing out that shooting to kill first off isn't something even police officers are supposed to do, especially not when the other person is unarmed.

The difference is law officers are trained in minimum force, and they are limited by the public on what they can do. For an individual, many gun owners are not trained well enough to take precision shots, and initial training is aim for center mass as that gives you the largest margin of error. Furthermore if a police officer were taking head shots the public would be outraged and see it as abusive, however as a citizen I realize that disarming someone with a shot to the shoulder may help, the reality is it may not. You can not harm me if you are dead. So from a survival, fight or flight, standpoint, it is in my best interest to put 10 rounds in the guys chest or head.


Criminals always look for the person most likely to make the least hassle, unless they're out of their mind of drugs that is. You don't even have to be armed with a gun to make enough problem for them to let you go.
Home alarms, personal alarms, pepper spray, a big bat placed in your home... what I'm saying is that maybe guns aren't the glorious savior so many seem to think it is.

The problem with this is that if I have a personal alarm, am mugged, and hit the alarm, now the criminal is startled, they are put in the fight or flight situation, and while they may run, they may also shoot me, take what they want, and run. So from a personal survival standpoint it is in my best interest to try to keep control of the situation. By pulling a gun (not even using it) the criminal now has something worse to fear than going to jail, and by using the gun I know I have likely prevented any negative reaction from them that could harm myself.

[twinkletwinkle]

I'm also pointing out that shooting to kill first off isn't something even police officers are supposed to do, especially not when the other person is unarmed.



Question here:

Am I wrong in thinking that in the U.S. officers are not supposed to shoot at all Unless it is to kill? Or is this now an outdated practice? Not sure...:confused:

[TeamTwig]

Question here:

Am I wrong in thinking that in the U.S. officers are not supposed to shoot at all Unless it is to kill? Or is this now an outdated practice? Not sure...:confused:

Yes, that is incorrect. Law enforcement officers are not supposed to shoot to kill except in extreme circumstances, and then it is unlikey to be a "street cop" that would take a kill shot - more likely a sniper/swat situation.

Cops are often trained to target shoulders, knees, etc. The point being to neutralize the threat the person can pose, but not to kill them.

[memnoch]

Yes, that is incorrect. Law enforcement officers are not supposed to shoot to kill except in extreme circumstances, and then it is unlikey to be a "street cop" that would take a kill shot - more likely a sniper/swat situation.

Cops are often trained to target shoulders, knees, etc. The point being to neutralize the threat the person can pose, but not to kill them.

This

Although I think the confusion is in the fact officers are trained that you should not pull the firearm UNLESS you are willing to kill, not that you have to, but that you realize it is a possibility.

[twinkletwinkle]

Yes, that is incorrect. Law enforcement officers are not supposed to shoot to kill except in extreme circumstances, and then it is unlikey to be a "street cop" that would take a kill shot - more likely a sniper/swat situation.

Cops are often trained to target shoulders, knees, etc. The point being to neutralize the threat the person can pose, but not to kill them.


This

Although I think the confusion is in the fact officers are trained that you should not pull the firearm UNLESS you are willing to kill, not that you have to, but that you realize it is a possibility.

:hmmmmm: Okay then. Thanks you both.

[ignescentphoenix]

I think she handled the situation correctly and hope she doesn't get charged.

[ShadowcatX]

You've probably got more people dying because of the legal guns than you would without.


I disagree. We have people dying because they want to break into someone's house and steal rather than work. We have people who die because they don't treat their guns with respect. We have people who die from sheer idiocy. We have few people who actually die because of "legal guns".

[WitchJezebel]

I would have done the same thing.

[Kraheera]

This is why guns should be legal. If she didn't have that gun she would have been raped and/or killed. Anyone who is against guns needs to realize her death would have been on their hands.

*sigh* Lais... you're at it again. Most people who are pro-gun control are not "against guns"... they are against someone just walking in, getting one, and then shooting through their paper thin apartment walls on accident and killing their toddler.

Most people I've talked to think that the only requirement needed for having a license to own a gun is to show you've taken some safety class (AKA, knowing how to handle the thing without it 'just going off'.)

[Zoritsa_Nepenthe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m31ZpQVILRk

That's the 911 call.It was hard listening to,especially after she shoots him.She says numerous times;"I don't want to kill him,I don't want to kill him".

[Laisrean]

While I support what she did, if she didn't want to kill him she could have shot a warning first to let him know she meant business. That, or shot him in the kneecaps to render him immobile and harmless until the police arrived.

But then again, I suppose it is just as well there is one less asshole in the world. :thumbsup:

[Loukhos]

I think it is rather disturbing that the news will play 911 calls like that. People don't need to hear that, it's just pure sensationalism.


While I support what she did, if she didn't want to kill him she could have shot a warning first to let him know she meant business. That, or shot him in the kneecaps to render him immobile and harmless until the police arrived.

A lot of shotguns are just single shot and firing a warning shot at someone would make you vulnerable. Also the body is a lot easier to hit than a kneecap, especially when you're under stress and faced with an unpredictable moving target. That's how police are trained, to shoot to stop the threat, instead of to shoot to immobilise.

[Æon Flux]

I disagree. We have people dying because they want to break into someone's house and steal rather than work. We have people who die because they don't treat their guns with respect. We have people who die from sheer idiocy. We have few people who actually die because of "legal guns".

:yayah:

yeah, cause people just think... I'm too lazy to work, so I'm gonna go into the business of breaking and entering and stealing shit? Riiight.

An idiot with a loaded legal gun still has a legal gun. Gun control obviously needs to be improved if you have idiots running around with firearms.

[TeamTwig]

I think it is rather disturbing that the news will play 911 calls like that. People don't need to hear that, it's just pure sensationalism.



A lot of shotguns are just single shot and firing a warning shot at someone would make you vulnerable. Also the body is a lot easier to hit than a kneecap, especially when you're under stress and faced with an unpredictable moving target. That's how police are trained, to shoot to stop the threat, instead of to shoot to immobilise.


Umm, no - that is incorrect. Law enforcement are specifically trained to shoot to neutralize (knees, shoulders), not to kill. Unless in extreme circumstances, and then it is more likely that the kill shot would be taken by a sniper/swat member, not a "street/patrol" officer.

This woman may not have intended to kill him either - from listening to the 911 call, it sounds like she was trying to avoid it actually. Nobody knows how well this woman could handle a gun, plus she was in a highly elevated emtional state. I'm sure that she just shot "at" him in fear/defense - not specifically to kill, but that was the end result.

[TeamTwig]

:yayah:

yeah, cause people just think... I'm too lazy to work, so I'm gonna go into the business of breaking and entering and stealing shit? Riiight.

An idiot with a loaded legal gun still has a legal gun. Gun control obviously needs to be improved if you have idiots running around with firearms.

Actually, sadly, there are people who will choose a life of crime rather than a 9-5 job to support themselves. Lack of money and desperation are generally why people here rob banks, steal, sell drugs, etc.

[memnoch]

*sigh* Lais... you're at it again. Most people who are pro-gun control are not "against guns"... they are against someone just walking in, getting one, and then shooting through their paper thin apartment walls on accident and killing their toddler.

Most people I've talked to think that the only requirement needed for having a license to own a gun is to show you've taken some safety class (AKA, knowing how to handle the thing without it 'just going off'.)

do you have statistics to show how common it is for a gun owner to accidentally kill someone? I used to have it and know it is ridiculously low. So because an extremely small percentage of people are idiots we should make it much more difficult (and possibly unconstitutional) for anyone to get a gun?

[Loukhos]

Umm, no - that is incorrect. Law enforcement are specifically trained to shoot to neutralize (knees, shoulders), not to kill. Unless in extreme circumstances, and then it is more likely that the kill shot would be taken by a sniper/swat member, not a "street/patrol" officer.

I've never heard of law enforcement officers being trained to shoot to neutralise. Maybe it differs from area to area, but I know in a lot of places they are trained to shoot the central mass. A lot of police shootings don't involve snipers...

[Æon Flux]

Actually, sadly, there are people who will choose a life of crime rather than a 9-5 job to support themselves. Lack of money and desperation are generally why people here rob banks, steal, sell drugs, etc.

Sure... and there are people who'd rather go into the military than work as a CEO, there are people who'd rather become prostitutes and strippers than work at McDonalds.... yadayadayda

most people who steal are not people who could get a 9-5 job easily. And I can guarantee you that desperation is the biggest driving force for the people who do turn to breaking an entry and stealing. (bear in mind I am not talking about the more organized crime here)
I don't know a lot of people who would like to support themselves on such activities with the risk of ending up in jail, or in some cases, getting killed over a, let's say... can of spam.

[TeamTwig]

I've never heard of law enforcement officers being trained to shoot to neutralise. Maybe it differs from area to area, but I know in a lot of places they are trained to shoot the central mass. A lot of police shootings don't involve snipers...

Perhaps Canada is different - my SO used to be a cop before moving into private sector, and they are trained to use non-lethal force whenever possible. Obviously there are some times when it is not avoidable. There's always the whole "suicide by cop" scenarios too.

In "high stakes" situations (stand offs, hostage situations, etc) most departments (at least for larger cities) have officers with specialized sniper/swat training.

[TeamTwig]

Sure... and there are people who'd rather go into the military than work as a CEO, there are people who'd rather become prostitutes and strippers than work at McDonalds.... yadayadayda

most people who steal are not people who could get a 9-5 job easily. And I can guarantee you that desperation is the biggest driving force for the people who do turn to breaking an entry and stealing. (bear in mind I am not talking about the more organized crime here)
I don't know a lot of people who would like to support themselves on such activities with the risk of ending up in jail, or in some cases, getting killed over a, let's say... can of spam.

No, most typical people would not choose crime over a "normal" job, but all it takes is a look at some of the inner city environments here to see that there are "subcultures" who are raised around crime, gangs, and poverty as a way of life. The cycle persists (not in all cases - some choose to go to school, work, etc. - whatever they have to do to "get out"). The fact of the matter is, there are some people who would rather prey off of others to get by, than be an upstanding member of society.
Most people I know would choose a job over crime also, but then I have always been quite far removed from the mentioned "subcultures".

[Loukhos]

Perhaps Canada is different - my SO used to be a cop before moving into private sector, and they are trained to use non-lethal force whenever possible. Obviously there are some times when it is not avoidable. There's always the whole "suicide by cop" scenarios too.

In "high stakes" situations (stand offs, hostage situations, etc) most departments (at least for larger cities) have officers with specialized sniper/swat training.



Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that this was how police were trained in the States. I'm actually not as familiar with how the Canadian police are trained (I'm curious now, I'll have to ask my brother, he went to a policing/security college). I definitely agree that they are trained to use non-lethal force first, but non-lethal force doesn't involve a gun. When a situation escalates to the use of a firearm that is when it has gotten to the point of using deadly force. I've tried looking it up on the internet to find a source that agrees with you, but my google-fu hasn't supplied me with a reliable source either way - but it seems to be the general consensus of the internet that in many places, cops are trained to shoot the body.

The best source I could come up with lists the continuum of force used by police officers in 6 different parts of the United States. It lists several steps before lethal force, but none of them involve using a gun.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-2.pdf#page=13

As for snipers, they require prior knowledge of a threat. Shootings can happen when a police officer is faced with an immediate threat, in which case they aren't able to wait for help, they need to act.

[TeamTwig]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that this was how police were trained in the States. I'm actually not as familiar with how the Canadian police are trained (I'm curious now, I'll have to ask my brother, he went to a policing/security college). I definitely agree that they are trained to use non-lethal force first, but non-lethal force doesn't involve a gun. When a situation escalates to the use of a firearm that is when it has gotten to the point of using deadly force. I've tried looking it up on the internet to find a source that agrees with you, but my google-fu hasn't supplied me with a reliable source either way - but it seems to be the general consensus of the internet that in many places, cops are trained to shoot the body.

The best source I could come up with lists the continuum of force used by police officers in 6 different parts of the United States. It lists several steps before lethal force, but none of them involve using a gun.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-2.pdf#page=13

As for snipers, they require prior knowledge of a threat. Shootings can happen when a police officer is faced with an immediate threat, in which case they aren't able to wait for help, they need to act.

Technically, I can only speak for our county's sherriff's department, since that is the department that my SO worked for, but he was trained to take non-lethal shots whenever possible. To his knowledge, departments are the same in that regard. This country prefers to let the justice system sort out criminals - which is easier to do when they are alive.

As I already mentioned - yes, there are situations where officers will have to kill someone - but protocol requires escalation - if a non-lethal shot doesn't adequately neutralize the imposing threat.

The examples I provided for the use of snipers/swat would be "prior knowledge" situations - stand off/hostage type situations.

[Loukhos]

The examples I provided for the use of snipers/swat would be "prior knowledge" situations - stand off/hostage type situations.

I apologise, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just meant that many shootings occur outside of that spectrum.

I don't mean to be argumentative it is just what you say is the opposite of what I have heard from people I have met in person. Perhaps the laws vary from district to district. One of the articles I read (which was a couple years old, I believe) was about proposed legislation in New York to enforce the use of non-lethal shooting (which would imply that the opposite was currently in effect).

[Æon Flux]

No, most typical people would not choose crime over a "normal" job, but all it takes is a look at some of the inner city environments here to see that there are "subcultures" who are raised around crime, gangs, and poverty as a way of life. The cycle persists (not in all cases - some choose to go to school, work, etc. - whatever they have to do to "get out"). The fact of the matter is, there are some people who would rather prey off of others to get by, than be an upstanding member of society.
Most people I know would choose a job over crime also, but then I have always been quite far removed from the mentioned "subcultures".

I'd argue that majority of these "subculture" instances is about survival and protection. But that's my perception of it.

[TeamTwig]

I apologise, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I just meant that many shootings occur outside of that spectrum.

I don't mean to be argumentative it is just what you say is the opposite of what I have heard from people I have met in person. Perhaps the laws vary from district to district. One of the articles I read (which was a couple years old, I believe) was about proposed legislation in New York to enforce the use of non-lethal shooting (which would imply that the opposite was currently in effect).

No worries - I didn't think that you were being argumentative at all actually - just trying to highlight the points we seemed to be in agreement on. :)

As far as major cities go (new york as your example), I think that sometimes those departments have different protocol since they deal with higher rates of crime, especially violent crime, and have more issues with gang related crime. We live in a large city, but not one of the "major" metros such as New York, L.A., etc. The majority of departments are required to use kill shots as a last resort.

[TeamTwig]

I'd argue that majority of these "subculture" instances is about survival and protection. But that's my perception of it.

I can see your point - and I really think that it's quite sad when someone is born into a particular lifestyle (such as one of poverty and gangs) and continues on that path. As you mentioned though - in that particular subculture, it's survival for some. Others, I think, prefer it - but inner city gang psychology is probably deviating from the original topic a little too far, so that may be another discussion.

[Laisrean]

A lot of shotguns are just single shot and firing a warning shot at someone would make you vulnerable. Also the body is a lot easier to hit than a kneecap, especially when you're under stress and faced with an unpredictable moving target. That's how police are trained, to shoot to stop the threat, instead of to shoot to immobilise.

Agreed, and I am not saying she was wrong with what she did. I'm just saying it was a possibility she might have considered. I don't know how many shells she had loaded, and in a situation like that you don't want to take any chances and shooting in the chest makes sense because it is the largest part of your assailants body. But with all that said, it is possible if she had shown him she had a shotgun that might have been sufficient to scare him away. Maybe he seen it, but maybe he didn't. I don't know.

So again, killing him was okay by me. I'm just pointing out some possibilities of how she might have handled the situation without killing him since she obviously didn't want to do that.

[Infinite Grey]

So again, killing him was okay by me.

This is why I tell my American friends to never vote for people like Ron Paul. :thumbsup:

[Laisrean]

This is why I tell my American friends to never vote for people like Ron Paul. :thumbsup:

What does Ron Paul have to do with anything in this thread?

[Infinite Grey]

What does Ron Paul have to do with anything in this thread?

Because most of your fellow Ron Paul worshippers share your social, economical and political values - I'd hate to see my friends live in country run via such a vision. Understand though, it's not Ron Paul I'm really against in essence, its his fan club :thumbsup: - the man's policies a mixture of good policy and A grade idiocy... even for a politician its an interesting mix.


Oh and I almost forgot... he's a paedophile too.

[Laisrean]

Because most of your fellow Ron Paul worshippers share your social, economical and political values - I'd hate to see my friends live in country run via such a vision. Understand though, it's not Ron Paul I'm really against in essence, its his fan club :thumbsup: - the man's policies a mixture of good policy and A grade idiocy... even for a politician its an interesting mix.


Oh and I almost forgot... he's a paedophile too.

1) His "fan club" aren't the ones running for office.

2) Yeah. but the good outweighs the bad, IMHO.

[Infinite Grey]

1) His "fan club" aren't the ones running for office.

2) Yeah. but the good outweighs the bad, IMHO.

Congratulations, you have an opinion, have a cookie.

[memnoch]

Because most of your fellow Ron Paul worshippers share your social, economical and political values - I'd hate to see my friends live in country run via such a vision. Understand though, it's not Ron Paul I'm really against in essence, its his fan club :thumbsup: - the man's policies a mixture of good policy and A grade idiocy... even for a politician its an interesting mix.


Oh and I almost forgot... he's a paedophile too.

Actually I've seen several people here who have supported several candidates including our savio...I mean president share his belief. As bad as it is when the Paul supporters won't shut up about him, it is worse when others won't as even his fan club has let him fade back to anonymity.

[Laisrean]

Actually I've seen several people here who have supported several candidates including our savio...I mean president share his belief. As bad as it is when the Paul supporters won't shut up about him, it is worse when others won't as even his fan club has let him fade back to anonymity.

The far-left need a scapegoat now that their man is in charge and things are still crap on all fronts. But I am really surprised Ron Paul is the target. As much as I admire him, even I admit he isn't that influential.

[Lunacie]

They will probably never know why he was trying to get into this house, but I doubt it was a simple home robbery. Why the heck would a robber leave his truck a few miles from the house he's going to rob? Doesn't that make it rather difficult to carry very much to the get-away car?

When the tox report comes back it will probably show he was just as high as his sister, who was left waiting in the truck a few miles away. Sometimes shooting to disable when the target is that high on drugs simply makes them more aggressive. Did the truck break down and the guy was looking for a phone or other help? We only know the tip of the iceberg here, there's an awful lot we don't know, may never know.

[Infinite Grey]

The far-left need a scapegoat now that their man is in charge and things are still crap on all fronts. But I am really surprised Ron Paul is the target. As much as I admire him, even I admit he isn't that influential.

I doubt Ron Paul would have any real influence on this "far-leftist" let along act as an effective scapegoat.

[ShadowcatX]

I think it is rather disturbing that the news will play 911 calls like that. People don't need to hear that, it's just pure sensationalism.

Agreed.


A lot of shotguns are just single shot and firing a warning shot at someone would make you vulnerable.

True again.


Also the body is a lot easier to hit than a kneecap, especially when you're under stress and faced with an unpredictable moving target. That's how police are trained, to shoot to stop the threat, instead of to shoot to immobilise.

You're ignoring the fact that police aren't expected to always have a shotgun on hand. Depending on what kind of shot she was using, taking out his legs would've been a perfectly valid tactic.

It wasn't the tactic she chose, and to be honest, I probably wouldn't have in her place either.

[ShadowcatX]

:yayah:

yeah, cause people just think... I'm too lazy to work, so I'm gonna go into the business of breaking and entering and stealing shit? Riiight.

Right actually. Why do you think he chose to steal? Was he going to pass it on to the poor? Or was he too disabled?

Poor guy should've had his every want and need taken care of at the expense of other people without him having to steal it himself.


An idiot with a loaded legal gun still has a legal gun. Gun control obviously needs to be improved if you have idiots running around with firearms.

Actually, I'm pretty sure an IQ test to own a firearm would be illegal and discriminatory.

[Lunacie]

Right actually. Why do you think he chose to steal? Was he going to pass it on to the poor? Or was he too disabled?

Poor guy should've had his every want and need taken care of at the expense of other people without him having to steal it himself.



Actually, I'm pretty sure an IQ test to own a firearm would be illegal and discriminatory.

So many here are assuming that he was there to rob the home. Pretty silly to park the get-away car "a few miles away" which is where the cops found his pickup with his completely stoned sister inside. This just doesn't sound like a home robbery to me.

[ShadowcatX]

So many here are assuming that he was there to rob the home. Pretty silly to park the get-away car "a few miles away" which is where the cops found his pickup with his completely stoned sister inside. This just doesn't sound like a home robbery to me.

He was breaking into her home. I'd say calling him a thief is about the best case scenario.

That said, you're right, it is stupid to park the get-away car miles away. That probably wasn't what happened. Said get-away car probably drove away after they heard a shotgun blast. If you just listened to your brother get blown away in a burglary you helped planned, well that'd be a pretty good reason to get stoned out of your mind.

Then again, I've never credited thieves, druggies, or those that encourage / support that life style, with an abundance of intelligence.

[Lunacie]

He was breaking into her home. I'd say calling him a thief is about the best case scenario.

That said, you're right, it is stupid to park the get-away car miles away. That probably wasn't what happened. Said get-away car probably drove away after they heard a shotgun blast. If you just listened to your brother get blown away in a burglary you helped planned, well that'd be a pretty good reason to get stoned out of your mind.

Then again, I've never credited thieves, druggies, or those that encourage / support that life style, with an abundance of intelligence.

Ah, that's an angle I hadn't considered - that his sister realized he'd just been shot, so she freaked out and drove away and took more drugs because she thought he was probably dead. That's certainly possible.

It still doesn't sound like a robbery because he was banging on the doors/windows/whatever without saying anything intelligible to get the person inside to let him in. But maybe people are too savvy nowadays to believe that the person at the door is there to check on a gas leak or to deliver a package.

[Kraheera]

do you have statistics to show how common it is for a gun owner to accidentally kill someone? I used to have it and know it is ridiculously low. So because an extremely small percentage of people are idiots we should make it much more difficult (and possibly unconstitutional) for anyone to get a gun?


I acknowledge it's a small amount. It's also why I think that people should be able to buy guns, but should also be required to take safety courses. Are you saying that we as a nation should be alright with someone just buying one and not knowing how to care for it?

With every right, you have duties. Technically, it is a duty to vote. It is also the duty of every citizen to be willing to take down their government if it crosses the line into tyranny.

The problem right now is that our country is lazy and has a 'give me' attitude. "Give me my guns, but no way in hell am I taking a class to know how to take care of it. That's bull man!"