My wife is a hero: mom shoots intruder 5 times, saves kids

[RodeoX]

 Nothing personal, threaten my family with death and I will shoot your brains out. I'm not mad at criminals, indeed I feel sorry for them and wish they would make another choice. But the choice to die is theirs not mine. If you want to break in and kill, rape, steal, with impunity ; try New York, LA, Chicago, D.C...But don't try a state that allows people to protect themselves.
Those who want to go unarmed are welcome to. But don't expect me to protect you. All the sensitivity and legal issues about this have caused me to rethink my training regime. I am no longer willing to intervene to defend a stranger. If I see someone being hacked to death by a crazy guy, I will draw my weapon and cover my retreat. It is just to legally risky to help. 

[xsfgsdrwe]

It's smarter to kill the intruder. Dead people can't make an argument in court against you, and they deserve it anyways if they're breaking into your house.

I don't agree with that in all cases.  If some drunk guy breaks into your house, and you flee up the steps with your kids; the deciding factor is wether or not he follows you.  If he just passes out on the couch, he probably thought he was home and was confused as to why his keys didn't work.  If he chases you up the steps, it's prudent to assume he has real ill intent on his addled mind, and he brought upon himself whatever happens next.  This guy was no burgler, he wanted something from the wife and kids.  If I was to hazard a guess, he was a serial rapist, and shooting him dead on the steps would have only improved the violent crime rate going forward as well as saved the taxpayers the money in prosecution and incarceration.

An armed society is a polite society.  What is rarely mentioned with that old saying, is the reason is that the 'criminallly impolite' have relatively short expectancies in an armed society.

Sadly enough this has happened on the same block as me. Pretty lucky the guy chose the house down the street rather than mine, he might not be so lucky next time.

[iCEBREAKER]

Let me summarize this thread:

1) We are so unhappy with our deep mental illnesses and lack of respect for life, we think the act of killing alone is heroism.

2) When somebody knocks on your door, stay quiet and hide in the closet with a weapon.

3) The purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect us from petty thieves. 

The 19-year old recently widowed young mother in the second instance was being stalked by her assailants before they forced her to take defensive action in the form of a kinetic response.

Let's summarize your asinine position:

1.  You're 19 years old, have a baby to protect, and your husband recently passed from cancer

2.  Some creepy dudes have been eying you and figure out you are alone and vulnerable

3.  They break in, to rape you or worse

4.  You should just give them what they want.  Maybe they won't hurt the baby.  They're just petty thieves and you should all hold hands and sing kumbaya.  Then maybe Scrabble and snacks, if they have time.

[sevenVII]

It's smarter to kill the intruder. Dead people can't make an argument in court against you, and they deserve it anyways if they're breaking into your house.

I don't agree with that in all cases.  If some drunk guy breaks into your house, and you flee up the steps with your kids; the deciding factor is wether or not he follows you.  If he just passes out on the couch, he probably thought he was home and was confused as to why his keys didn't work.  If he chases you up the steps, it's prudent to assume he has real ill intent on his addled mind, and he brought upon himself whatever happens next.  This guy was no burgler, he wanted something from the wife and kids.  If I was to hazard a guess, he was a serial rapist, and shooting him dead on the steps would have only improved the violent crime rate going forward as well as saved the taxpayers the money in prosecution and incarceration.

An armed society is a polite society.  What is rarely mentioned with that old saying, is the reason is that the 'criminallly impolite' have relatively short expectancies in an armed society.

And Santa was never seen again...

[MoonShadow]

It's smarter to kill the intruder. Dead people can't make an argument in court against you, and they deserve it anyways if they're breaking into your house.

I don't agree with that in all cases.  If some drunk guy breaks into your house, and you flee up the steps with your kids; the deciding factor is wether or not he follows you.  If he just passes out on the couch, he probably thought he was home and was confused as to why his keys didn't work.  If he chases you up the steps, it's prudent to assume he has real ill intent on his addled mind, and he brought upon himself whatever happens next.  This guy was no burgler, he wanted something from the wife and kids.  If I was to hazard a guess, he was a serial rapist, and shooting him dead on the steps would have only improved the violent crime rate going forward as well as saved the taxpayers the money in prosecution and incarceration.

An armed society is a polite society.  What is rarely mentioned with that old saying, is the reason is that the 'criminallly impolite' have relatively short expectancies in an armed society.

And Santa was never seen again...

Santa was a lie told to small children so they might be more trusting in the presence of old strangers.  Ever notice that a baby is always sceptical of a guy in a santa suit?  That's probably a rational response to old men they don't know.

[Spendulus]

.....I am no longer willing to intervene to defend a stranger. If I see someone being hacked to death by a crazy guy, I will draw my weapon and cover my retreat. It is just to legally risky to help. 

No.

There are options.

For example, you might try:  "Leave him alone!  He's mine, I want to hack him to death.  Get away!"

Then when the perp comes at you....

[TheButterZone]

Bahaha!

[hlynur]

from my biased european standpoint (ca. 1,24 gundeaths per 100.000 population in germany) i would not exactly say that you should take the right away from somebody protecting himself or his family with a gun.
But taking into account that the original intention of this right makes much more sense in rural areas, where nature's law is more present and it takes a long time until somebody could help you if you're in danger,
it's by contrast relatively unhealthy for crowded urban areas as long as the overall social disruption is on a low level that guarantees a common solidarity of a society.

As soon as social stress starts growing and gaps between social classes expand during times of crisis, nature's law starts shifting in the foreground for individuals and in combination with high rates of gun possession this mixture doesn't look like solving the problem at all.
in the US it's easy for a socially disadvantaged individual to get his hands on a weapon as a tool to obtain value with pressure while an advantaged individual can also get a weapon as easily to prevent the other one from suceeding in doing so.
besides this raw battle for a living every other intention to use a gun is following from the growing psychological illnesses and social stress.

i still believe in the term "man is a wolf to man", this can only be overridden by a functioning and strong society based on ethical and moral rules handed on and adapted over time from generation to generation.
imo if an individual lacks these rules he shouldn't be in the position to possess a gun, because it's a very basic tool simple to use to realize his antisocial aims.
if at all, then possession of guns should go hand in hand with a strong education and regulation to guarantee it's not getting into the wrong hands, because besides the aspect of hunting or sports people simply don't need such a strong tool for self-defense in an intact and secure modern society. (there are lots of alternatives for this purpose like pepper spray, electro shocker or other things. I'm not too familiar with that stuff.)

on the other hand perhaps US society (ca. 10,3 gundeaths per 100.000 population) has already broken apart to a point where nature's law for survival is so present in the swarm's awareness, that this pacifistic thought approach is no longer valid.
On top american weapon companies profit from that situation a lot and arm society to a point where it becomes quite excessive regardless of the consequences while manipulating via media and lobbying politicians not to take any action.



here are some charts and articles i found quite interesting on the subject.
- Gundeaths in US since Newtown shooting:
   http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
- worldwide gun deaths vs gun ownerships
   http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12
- List of countries by firearm-related death rate
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

edit: at this point i recommend the movie "Dear Wendy" for another diverse approach to this subject

[Hfleer]

How dare anyone suggest people don't have the right to keep and bear arms?

I'd love to see them suggest such a thing to Mrs. Herman and Sarah McKinley.  But they won't, because they basically are complete and total cowards.


Georgia mom shoots intruder 5 times in face, hides children
http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/

A Georgia mother hid her two 9-year-old twins and shot an intruder several times during a home invasion

“My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner,” Donnie Herman told WSB-TV.

Young Oklahoma Mom Shoots Intruder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw4B_XbW7ds

19-year-old with a baby says 911 operator told her to "do what you need to do."

If you refuse to protect your kids from harm (including becoming orphans), you are the shittiest failed parent ever.

Lol, took that piece of trash 20 minutes to break the door down.  Shooting called justified, nice.

[MoonShadow]

from my biased european standpoint (ca. 1,24 gundeaths per 100.000 population in germany) i would not exactly say that you should take the right away from somebody protecting himself or his family with a gun.
But taking into account that the original intention of this right makes much more sense in rural areas, where nature's law is more present and it takes a long time until somebody could help you if you're in danger,
it's by contrast relatively unhealthy for crowded urban areas as long as the overall social disruption is on a low level that guarantees a common solidarity of a society.

As soon as social stress starts growing and gaps between social classes expand during times of crisis, nature's law starts shifting in the foreground for individuals and in combination with high rates of gun possession this mixture doesn't look like solving the problem at all.
in the US it's easy for a socially disadvantaged individual to get his hands on a weapon as a tool to obtain value with pressure while an advantaged individual can also get a weapon as easily to prevent the other one from suceeding in doing so.
besides this raw battle for a living every other intention to use a gun is following from the growing psychological illnesses and social stress.

i still believe in the term "man is a wolf to man", this can only be overridden by a functioning and strong society based on ethical and moral rules handed on and adapted over time from generation to generation.
imo if an individual lacks these rules he shouldn't be in the position to possess a gun, because it's a very basic tool simple to use to realize his antisocial aims.
if at all, then possession of guns should go hand in hand with a strong education and regulation to guarantee it's not getting into the wrong hands, because besides the aspect of hunting or sports people simply don't need such a strong tool for self-defense in an intact and secure modern society. (there are lots of alternatives for this purpose like pepper spray, electro shocker or other things. I'm not too familiar with that stuff.)

on the other hand perhaps US society (ca. 10,3 gundeaths per 100.000 population) has already broken apart to a point where nature's law for survival is so present in the swarm's awareness, that this pacifistic thought approach is no longer valid.
On top american weapon companies profit from that situation a lot and arm society to a point where it becomes quite excessive regardless of the consequences while manipulating via media and lobbying politicians not to take any action.

 

That all sounds like you've done some research on the topic.  Sure, the US gun death toal is pretty high, but did you know that if you remove the statistics that come from cities of greater than 250K, the gun death rate is lower than in The UK, Australia, Russia or France?  Even if you remove the gun death total from those same large cities as well.  I'm not talking murder rates either, I'm talking about deaths from firearms.  If we were to include murder by blunt or sharp weapons of opprotunity, The British Isles don't look so civilized anymore.  Even Germany wouldn't look so good anymore.  If one considers just the rate of violent crimes overall, and not just those involiving a death, The UK already is higher than the United States even without removing major cities from the mix.  Australia isn't far behind, either; and Russia has been well over the US since the fall of the Soviet State.  You don't hear about such statistics because they really don't support the agenda of groups that tend to use such arguments.

It is not the place of politicians, or anyone else, to "fix" the social problems.  Those problems are the direct results of culture clashes, in large part; and are concentrated in areas where those cultures overlap.  This isn't Germany, so there is no way the US is ever going to be able to enforce a prohibition on parrallel cultures.  (We can argue about whether it really works for Germany some other time)

That all said, if we were to do an honest comparison between Europe and the US, we would be comparing individual US States to individual European States.  Comparing the US as a whole to individual EUropean states is deception, and a comparison of the US overall against Europe overall would have to include the Eastern former block countries, and Europe would look far worse than it should in reality, would it not?  If we were to compare very civilized & modern Germany to, let's say, my home state of Kentucky, how do you think that Germany would fare?  Germany does not permit personally owned firearms.  Ketucky is one of the most weaons permissive states in the United States, including the registration & licesning of Class III weaponry (Military arms; I.E. fully automatic machine guns, armor piercing rounds, incidiary rounds, explosives and weaponized vehicles such as tanks, silencers etc.)  If you've got the funds & a clean criminal record, you can get it here.

REally, I want to know how that woulc play out.  I'd be willing to wager that Germany looks more dangerous than Kentucky, from a violent crime statistics perspective.

[Schleicher]

REally, I want to know how that woulc play out.  I'd be willing to wager that Germany looks more dangerous than Kentucky, from a violent crime statistics perspective.

Well, here are the official statistics (short version):
Police Crime Statistics (Federal Republic of Germany) 2012 (PDF)
What's not in there:
5696 cases of threats with a gun

[RodeoX]

.....I am no longer willing to intervene to defend a stranger. If I see someone being hacked to death by a crazy guy, I will draw my weapon and cover my retreat. It is just to legally risky to help. 

No.

There are options.

For example, you might try:  "Leave him alone!  He's mine, I want to hack him to death.  Get away!"

Then when the perp comes at you....

hehe 

[MoonShadow]

http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/pdf/cik_2012.pdf

Here is the link to the comparable document for Kentucky.  Interestingly, they don't produce a crime rate, only an absolute number of offences.  For all of Kentucky during 2012, the total number of crimes that are considered violent (i.e. Assault, Homicide, Kidnapping, Robbery, and Rape) is 36,965.  According to Wikipedia, Kentucky's population was 4,380,415 on July 1, 2012.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky#Demographics)

36,965 /4,380,415 = 0.0084386981598775 or 843.9 per 100K.  Did I do that right?

According to page 2 of your submitted document, total violent crime in Germany was 195,143 in 2012. This includes, as stated, Murder & Manslaughter, Rape & violent sexual crimes, Robberies, and Dangerous Bodiliy Injury (which I will assume is comparable to assault here).  No mention of kidnapping, is that not a crime in Germany?

According to Wikipedia again, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany) Germany had a population of 80,219,695 during the official census of 2011.  Which seems the most current numbers available, so we'll run with that.

 195,143 / 80,219,695 = 0.0024326071047765 or 243.3 per 100K.

Assuming we have good numbers, and there is no reason that I can see to assume we do not, and assuming I did that correctly, (I'm sure that if I did not, someone will mention it) we would have to assume that a German is about a quarter as likely to be a victim of a violent crime, randomly speaking, than a Kentuckian.  I must say, I did not expect that outcome.

EDIT::  Wait, brandishing a firearm isn't a crime?  Undoubtedly that number is too low to be relevent, but what else isn't part of German crime stats?  If you pull out a weapon to threaten another person here, that's already assualt even if the threat is hollow.  If you threaten someone bodily harm over the phone, it's terroristic threatening, which is a violent crime here also, filed under the catargory of assault.

EDIT2: Wow, I didn't know there was such an epidemic of kidnappings in Kentucky.  Another damn good reason to own a handgun.  Not enough to alter the overall outcome even if Germany's kidnapping rate was as bad, though.  I also noticed that both violations of gun possession regulations (i.e. getting caught with a handgun in public without a permit to carry) or getting caught with a gun in your possession while committing a federal drug violation (i.e. caught growing pot in the woods, and there is a shotgun in your truck) is almost always (I say almost, because I'm sure it's not a perfect corrolation) an automatic charge of assualt of a police officer.  There are certainly enough drugs and guns in Kentucky to make that combonation into a data changer, but I have no way of filtering out the real crimes here from the charges that police stack up on a perp.  These stats are not convictions, so the charges alone would contribute to the "crime rate".

[Schleicher]

 No mention of kidnapping, is that not a crime in Germany?

I'm not sure what's included in the category "Straftaten gegen die persönliche Freiheit" (crimes against personal freedom).
That's 211643 victims there. That's a lot of victims.
(edit: that includes kidnapping, trafficking, stalking, threatening and "Nötigung"(coercion?))

Wait, brandishing a firearm isn't a crime?  Undoubtedly that number is too low to be relevent, but what else isn't part of German crime stats?  If you pull out a weapon to threaten another person here, that's already assualt even if the threat is hollow.

That's at least "offence against the weapon act". Probably "threatening".

[MoonShadow]

 No mention of kidnapping, is that not a crime in Germany?

I'm not sure what's included in the category "Straftaten gegen die persönliche Freiheit" (crimes against personal freedom).
That's 211643 victims there. That's a lot of victims.
(edit: that includes kidnapping, trafficking, stalking, threatening and "Nötigung"(coercion?))

A better question, is would "crimes against personal freedom" be considered a violent crime?  If it is not in Germany, that's enough to move the numbers to nearly even, since kidnapping is certainly counted as a violent crime.  I'm pretty sure that any of those "crimes against personal freedom" would be a catagory of violent crime here.  Definitions matter a great deal in the context of statistics.  How can we even compare countries that report the same crime as entirely different classes of crimes?

Wait, brandishing a firearm isn't a crime?  Undoubtedly that number is too low to be relevent, but what else isn't part of German crime stats?  If you pull out a weapon to threaten another person here, that's already assualt even if the threat is hollow.

That's at least "offence against the weapon act". Probably "threatening".

Okay, would those be considered violent crimes?  They are here.  I'm gaining new insight into why it is that European nations appear so safe statisticly, while the US appears so violent.  It seems to be, in part, because your governments don't regard some common types of social crimes to be violent in nature, while ours generally do.  If someone called you on the phone and threatened you with bodily harm, would the threat alone be a violent crime in Germany?  It would in Kentucky, and I'm pretty sure that's generally true in the United States.  I know it's also true in California, Ohio, Indiana & Tennessee at least.  It's likely to be true in every state that my Kentucky State Deadly Weapons Permit is honored, which today is well over half of all of the states last I checked.

[TheButterZone]

Gasp, a government manipulating statistics to make its subjects believe it's perfectly fine to prohibit the right to effective self-defense!? That doesn't happen every day...

[Dabs]

Ok. Not reading it all. I'm just cheering for the mother! Woot! Go mom!

[MoonShadow]

Notablely, I stumbled upon this article...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/dean-weingarten/cops-more-likely-to-murder%e2%80%a8/

That attempts to compare the murder rate of sworn police officers against the murder rate of licensed concelled carry permit holders.  The not very official rate of police officers that committed unjustifiable homicides, while working or otherwise, is around 1.5 per 100,000.  Which if they were a nation amongst themselves, would make them safer and more trustworthy than Germans.  One would expect such a law & order group to be upstanding.  But here's the unexpected part, the rate of concelled carry permit holders that commit homicides (with a firearm or otherwise) is just over 0.5 per 100,000; making the self-selecting lot of those who pursue such a permit the most trustworthy group in the world.

EDIT: In the interests of disclosures of biases, I am among that self-selecting group.

EDIT: It appears that those above numbers were for domestic homicides, not all homicides; but the trend remains true.

[Dabs]

Well, cops don't like to deal with living witnesses that could afford lawyers knowing the department will shoulder all the legal expenses.

People just want to protect their families. However, if it's justified to begin with, I'll keep shooting until the threat has stopped; unfortunately for the bad guy, that might mean more than is needed cuz he still looks like he's a threat.

[termhn]

>fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.
>He was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive.

Guy must be made of steel

Too bad the Amber Lamps got there in time.  

Mom needs a bigger gun!  Bet she gets a .45 or 12 gauge ASAP.

She doesn't need a bigger gun.  She obviously knows how to use that one quite well.  To be able to put all five rounds loaded in a 38 special and hit a target the size of a melon from across a room, particularly while hyped up on adrenaline, is the halmark of a sharpshooter.  Furthermore, the most effective (not most deadly) handgun calibers, statisticly speaking, are the .380 automatic followed by the 22LR.  In every defensive case, your goal is to get the attacker to stop, not necessarily to kill them.  With that in mind, the above small calibers are well known for accuracy as well as their ability for follow-up shots.  The most important factor in a defensive handgun caliber is your personal ability to hit what you are shooting at, everything else is a secondary consideration.  Also, statisicly, the 45 is a terrible choice for a defensive handgun, because the recoil is so harsh that nearly everyone under 6' 2" and 240 lbs has trouble bringing the sights back onto target for a follow-up shot in any speedy fashion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdr14xVetXM

Yes, I totally agree. You do NOT need a big gun for self defense, you need one you can shoot ACCURATELY.