Poor Man! Another Senseless Killing

[Guest]

I don't know how this woman can live with herself.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/woman_killed_unknown_man_in_he.html#incart_most-read_

She took no time to try to talk or find any alternatives.  She just took out a gun and shot a completely defenseless man.  And the police aren't going to arrest her?  How can this be called justice?  What ever happened to common sense?  He apparently had no gun.  She had a gun and just shot him.  Couldn't she just call the police and let them handle it?  And this was in front of her own children.

What does it matter where the shooting happened?  How does she justify ending a life that could have been redeemed?  Isn't that what the Gospel is all about?  What if she shot him in YOUR home? 

Poor victim.  We need to plaster his face all over the news and make him the poster child for gun violence.

[unixknight]

I don't take a firm position on this one either way.  There is absolutely no justifiable reason for a stranger to be in the kids' bedroom, so it's easy to imagine a serious threat is present.  That said, if it was only a cat burglar a better option would have been to use the gun to try and scare the guy off before pulling the trigger, or even better, get out of the house and call the police. 

Maybe she was going to, the article isn't clear on that, so we don't know very much about what actually went on. 

[anatess2]

A person entering one's house without invitation is an invader.  He is not a victim.

An American has every right to defend his property from any and all invaders.

A woman with children facing an invader in her home does not need to invoke diplomacy first.

Let this be a lesson to ALL PEOPLE... DO NOT INVADE AN AMERICAN HOME.

This lesson goes with - DO NOT GO NEAR MAMA BEARS WITH BEAR CUBS.  YOU WILL DIE.

[David13]

Anatess2

I know.  Why should it take a genius to figure that out. 

dc

[David13]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know how this woman can live with herself.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/woman_killed_unknown_man_in_he.html#incart_most-read_

She took no time to try to talk or find any alternatives.  She just took out a gun and shot a completely defenseless man.  And the police aren't going to arrest her?  How can this be called justice?  What ever happened to common sense?  He apparently had no gun.  She had a gun and just shot him.  Couldn't she just call the police and let them handle it?  And this was in front of her own children.

What does it matter where the shooting happened?  How does she justify ending a life that could have been redeemed?  Isn't that what the Gospel is all about?  What if she shot him in YOUR home? 

Poor victim.  We need to plaster his face all over the news and make him the poster child for gun violence.

No gun killed him.

His own stupidity and evil nature did.

Good shoot.

dc

[unixknight]

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

A person entering one's house without invitation is an invader.  He is not a victim.

An American has every right to defend his property from any and all invaders.

A woman with children facing an invader in her home does not need to invoke diplomacy first.

Let this be a lesson to ALL PEOPLE... DO NOT INVADE AN AMERICAN HOME.

This lesson goes with - DO NOT GO NEAR MAMA BEARS WITH BEAR CUBS.  YOU WILL DIE.

The problem is that unless the person is a threat to someones' life, it's not legal to use deadly force in most states.  Some states have a "duty to retreat" approach where you must try and escape and not stand your ground.  (It's stupid, because it second guesses peoples' decisions long before they're even made)

That said, I don't see it as ever justified to automatically open fire for no good reason.  It seems to me this was just a cat burglar who broke into a home that was empty.  That isn't a justification to kill them.  If he was armed and/or lunged at her (and maybe he did) then I wouldn't question her decision to defend herself and her kids.  I'm just not comfortable with the idea of automatically ending a human life just because they're in your home.

So to reiterate: Without knowing exactly what happened, there's nothing to form a firm opinion on in this case.  If the police were satisfied that she acted reasonably, then that's it.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Couldn't she just call the police and let them handle it?  And this was in front of her own children.

P.S.

This is an anti-American sentiment. 

An American is self-reliant.  He does not rely on government or police to defend his own castle.  The Declaration of Independence - the ideals that birthed the American culture - states unequivocally that MAN has INALIENABLE RIGHTS.  With these rights come the responsibility of DEFENDING these rights.  The US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS these rights - including the right of every American to stand up to threat.

This is very unique in the entire world.  This is what makes the United States of America the beacon of hope.

This is what makes it nigh impossible for organizations such as ISIS to raze the American people... ISIS may be able to cross the Southern Border, the POTUS may render the Military impotent... even then, ISIS won't survive Texas.

Edited June 27, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The problem is that unless the person is a threat to someones' life, it's not legal to use deadly force in most states.  Some states have a "duty to retreat" approach where you must try and escape and not stand your ground.  (It's stupid, because it second guesses peoples' decisions long before they're even made)

That said, I don't see it as ever justified to automatically open fire for no good reason.  It seems to me this was just a cat burglar who broke into a home that was empty.  That isn't a justification to kill them.  If he was armed and/or lunged at her (and maybe he did) then I wouldn't question her decision to defend herself and her kids.  I'm just not comfortable with the idea of automatically ending a human life just because they're in your home.

So to reiterate: Without knowing exactly what happened, there's nothing to form a firm opinion on in this case.  If the police were satisfied that she acted reasonably, then that's it.

This is like debating whether to kill the gorilla or not.  It's easy to armchair quarterback after the fact... from the computer.  It's like the NFL and instant replay.  Life has no instant replay.

Edited June 27, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is like debating whether to kill the gorilla or not.

How so?

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

How so?

I pressed submit too soon.  See the edited comment.

Edited June 27, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is like debating whether to kill the gorilla or not.  It's easy to armchair quarterback after the fact... from the computer.  It's like the NFL and instant replay.  Life has no instant replay.

Well that's why I take no firm position either way.  As I said, if the police are satisfied then there's nothing more to say about it.

I just wouldn't want people to start beating war drums about gunning down intruders outright.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Well that's why I take no firm position either way.  As I said, if the police are satisfied then there's nothing more to say about it.

I just wouldn't want people to start beating war drums about gunning down intruders outright.

Right.

At the same time, Carb's post needed a sanity check.

 

[NeuroTypical]

49 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The problem is that unless the person is a threat to someones' life, it's not legal to use deadly force in most states. 

True.  What is also true, is if you come home to discover an unknown person in your child's bedroom, you get to assume that person is a threat to your life.  That's what being a "threat to someone's life" looks like - breaking in to someone else's house and being discovered in their child's bedroom.  

Quote

Some states have a "duty to retreat" approach where you must try and escape and not stand your ground.

Yeah, Oregon ain't one of those states.  161.219: "a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is ... Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling"

Dang shame?  Absolutely.  Didn't have to happen?  Of course it didn't have to happen.  It's a tragedy, but hardly a travesty.  

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[David13]

There is no duty to retreat OUT OF YOUR HOME.  The duty to retreat is INTO YOUR HOME, where there i such a duty. 

Insanity for sure that people don't realize that there IS NO RIGHT FOR THE CRIMINAL TO COME INTO YOUR HOME AND COMMIT A CRIME.

Why do these people want to bend over backwards apologizing for evil behavior.  They need to restudy what CTR means.

It doesn't mean make excuses for criminal behavior.

dc

[Guest MormonGator]

=

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

I don't take a firm position on this one either way.  There is absolutely no justifiable reason for a stranger to be in the kids' bedroom, so it's easy to imagine a serious threat is present.  That said, if it was only a cat burglar a better option would have been to use the gun to try and scare the guy off before pulling the trigger, or even better, get out of the house and call the police. 

Maybe she was going to, the article isn't clear on that, so we don't know very much about what actually went on. 

I totally agree with Unix, which isn't uncommon. If you enjoy the thought of killing people (even "bad guys") and look for a reason to shoot first and ask questions later, you are a sick, sick person. 

No police officer or solider enjoys the process of taking someones life. They accept it as a necessary evil. Big difference between that and bloodlust. In fact, many police officers-even using deadly force in the "best"/most acceptable circumstances!-usually has to talk to a shrink about it, and who can blame them? 

I'm a gun owner (I own enough guns to invade Cuba) and I'd shoot you if you broke into my house. Would I enjoy it? Of course not. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

23 minutes ago, David13 said:

Insanity for sure that people don't realize that there IS NO RIGHT FOR THE CRIMINAL TO COME INTO YOUR HOME AND COMMIT A CRIME.

Who has claimed otherwise?

23 minutes ago, David13 said:

Why do these people want to bend over backwards apologizing for evil behavior.  They need to restudy what CTR means.

Not sure how CTR teaches us that deadly force should be the default setting when we find a cat burglar in our home.  And who is apologizing for evil behavior?

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, unixknight said:

  And who is apologizing for evil behavior?

Right. No one is going to be an apologist for a criminal who breaks into the room of a child. Am I sorry he died? Honestly? Not really. 

But if you carry a gun and look for reasons to play Dirty Harry than congratulations. You are part of the problem. 

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Right. No one is going to be an apologist for a criminal who breaks into the room of a child. Am I sorry he died? Honestly? Not really. 

But if you carry a gun and look for reasons to play Dirty Harry than congratulations. You are part of the problem.

Bingo.  There's a troubling bloodthirsty feel to the idea that anyone who trespasses automatically forfeits their life no matter what their reason is for being there.  That's not a Christian attitude.  I acknowledge that sometimes you have to use deadly force to defend yourself or your family, but I don't want to have blood on my hands and have to explain to the Savior on the Day of Judgment that I took the life of one of my earthly brethren because he might have been in my home to steal my sweet SONY TV set...

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Bingo.  There's a troubling bloodthirsty feel to the idea that anyone who trespasses automatically forfeits their life no matter what their reason is for being there.  That's not a Christian attitude.  I acknowledge that sometimes you have to use deadly force to defend yourself or your family, but I don't want to have blood on my hands and have to explain to the Savior on the Day of Judgment that I took the life of one of my earthly brethren because he might have been in my home to steal my sweet SONY TV set...

Perfectly said. 

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Not sure how CTR teaches us that deadly force should be the default setting when we find a cat burglar in our home.

I have absolutely zero faith in the good intentions or trustworthiness of anyone breaking into my home or trying to steal my stuff.  Unfortunately for them, deadly force is generally the most effective way to ensure an end to the offense and potential threat to my safety without exposing myself to unnecessary risk.

If they're cooperative enough, I'll toss them a set of handcuffs and they can cuff themselves until the police show up, but anything other than an immediate exit by the least threatening route or absolute compliance is going to get ugly.

[David13]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Right. No one is going to be an apologist for a criminal who breaks into the room of a child. Am I sorry he died? Honestly? Not reall. 

But if you carry a gun and look for reasons to play Dirty Harry than congratulations. You are part of the problem. 

 

Dirty Harry?

That's sort of a corny allegation to make.. No one here said anything about being Dirty Harry and looking for reasons to play.

They said something about defending a homeowner and her children.

And that was after an absurd post apologizing and whining about what happened to a criminal.

This idea that a criminal has rights to commit his crimes is all part of the agenda we see today polluting the world. Just like celebrating perversion in the streets, or abortion.

dc

[David13]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Who has claimed otherwise?

Not sure how CTR teaches us that deadly force should be the default setting when we find a cat burglar in our home.  And who is apologizing for evil behavior?

How do you know it was a cat burglar.  Oh, you read minds now, huh?

How do you know it wasn't a child abductor/rapist/murdered?

dc

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, David13 said:

How do you know it was a cat burglar.  Oh, you read minds now, huh?

How do you know it wasn't a child abductor/rapist/murdered?

dc

Because typically a kidnapper goes to a place where there's someone to kidnap.  As the article said, this woman came home to find the intruder already there. 

[beefche]

How do I know why someone is in my home uninvited? If I'm at home and there is a stranger who broke into my house, I'm not going to interview him to find out if he is merely there to steal something or rape me or look at my home decor. 

No, you break into my house, I'm going to assume the worst. I don't relish the thought of hurting anyone, let alone killing someone. But, again, if I feel that my life is in danger (and not knowing someone's motive means danger to me), then I would feel justified in shooting and even killing someone. I may need therapy afterward, but I'll do what I can to save my life or the life of loved ones.

[Blackmarch]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know how this woman can live with herself.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/woman_killed_unknown_man_in_he.html#incart_most-read_

She took no time to try to talk or find any alternatives.  She just took out a gun and shot a completely defenseless man.  And the police aren't going to arrest her?  How can this be called justice?  What ever happened to common sense?  He apparently had no gun.  She had a gun and just shot him.  Couldn't she just call the police and let them handle it?  And this was in front of her own children.

What does it matter where the shooting happened?  How does she justify ending a life that could have been redeemed?  Isn't that what the Gospel is all about?  What if she shot him in YOUR home? 

Poor victim.  We need to plaster his face all over the news and make him the poster child for gun violence.

Justice is not mercy. If the state has any home defense laws, if the person did not have any permission to be in the home and is not a resident of it, then the shooting is justifiable. 

While she did not take the christlike route, she was within the bounds of justice. 

Somewhere i read that on average in a crminal encounter you have just over 6 seconds before you are compromised. And she had kids there... So without really having a good understanding of what exactly went on and etc... I support the ladys decision. My guess is taht her thought process is she didnt want to leave any chance of harm coming to her kids at all.