6th Grader Shoots Potential Rapist

[CrazyGirl17]

Well, good on her for defending herself. And while we don't know what his intentions for her were... why worry about it? The girl took care of him, right?

 

[DoPo]

Also this sounds like a Daily Mail headline special Man breaks into house and is shot by a 12 yo girl HE MUST HAVE BEEN A RAPIST.

No he could have just left her or injured her in other ways. Even killed her. But all that is irrelevant. He came after her in the closet. He did not grab the valuables and split. Why?

Dude, I said it before: if I break into a house[footnote]not that I have, or intend to, but I sorta know how I'll act[/footnote] and I find out there is someone inside, and I know that someone is a child, I wouldn't know them interfering. Like, I dunno, calling the police or something. Also, I can just go ahead and ask them "Where are the valuables?". Why should I bother unhooking and carrying a damn TV when I can go and get some much easy to carry cash/jewelry? And notice how those two things don't tend to sit out in the open, within easy reach of the front door, or wherever one would break into. At least they don't sit out in the open close to the entrance area in any house I've (legitimately) entered. There is merit in assuming that the family didn't store their so close and obvious, so that guy deliberately bypassed them. And if the article is to be believed, they actually didn't - it only mentions the TV as "a valuable" the guy walked by.

Yeah, the girl did call the police - does he know that? She also called her mom. He maybe didn't know whether she has the police or not, if he knew about a phonecall at all. Let's assume he is I, again - I'm chasing after that kid trying to stop it from calling the police. Actually, turns out the kid (notice I don't specify gender) did get through them. But is now hiding in the closet. How about this course of action - I open the closet, grab the phone, throw it away, ask where the money are and try to get them and sprint away in the shortest time possible. Well, I probably can't that (out of shape) but if I would be burglaring, it's safe to assume I'd be able to do it in about a minute. Police takes way more than that to arrive, I know that. It's totally plausible, doable, and I'd act this way under those circumstances. That's not even 20/20 due to hindsight.

Now, I'm not saying the guy had absolutely no intention to harm the girl. He might have. Hell, he might have just wanted to straight up murder her. However, that's a big leap in logic to assume that, from a piece of information that could mean anything, really. The guy might have also been insane, who knows[footnote]to be fair, though, that would likely have been mentioned[/footnote] - you're applying a lot of assumptions while ignoring others.

 

[DoPo]

you're applying a lot of assumptions while ignoring others.

No I did not. I said you should not chance the outcome. The girl did the right thing shooting through the closet door. There is no possible way for you to logically argue against it. She was alone with a fucking guy who just broke in to her house. Safe to say, he was not the most reasonable person in the world.

Should she lower the gun and hope he was only after the jewelry and money? If the answer is no, why the argument?

You asked why didn't the guy grab the valuables. I told you a possible reason. I'm not arguing at all that we should have all hoped for the best. Which you'd know IF YOU READ WHAT I'VE SAID SO FAR. Because, there you go - now you're jumping to conclusions again.

Other than that, well, it may have been a bit over the top, but otherwise a good reaction.

That's in the twelfth comment in the thread.

Never, ever have I suggested that "she lower the gun and hope he was only after the jewelry and money". That's you who said it based on no evidence. No, wait, actually, with evidence of the opposite.

 

[Sylveria]

I thinks we're all jumping the gun by assuming the intruder is a rapist when the only crime they committed so far was home invasion.
Also damn, America needs better locks.

EDIT: Due to a severe case of misunderstandings allow me to reiterate.
1. The bold means it's a joke -nudge nudge wink wink-
2. I'm pointing out that he shouldn't be labelled as a rapist at all, just a burglar.
3. The Lock part is also a joke, that most Americans see their guns as the first and only line of defence, perhaps investment into a stronger door and security screens would have saved this girls from a traumatic experience.

Perhaps some dirtbag not breaking in to her house to rob and/or rape her would have saved her from a traumatic experience. Way to blame the victim though.

 

[Doom972]

"the only crime they committed so far was home invasion"?

Yes, the only crime committed so far was home invasion. Here is how the reasoning goes - the guy invaded a home and didn't get to do anything else unlawful.

"just a burglar"?

Yes, precisely. He broke into a household, I think we can agree that he intended to commit another crime - a burglar.

This sort of attitude will only encourage more crime. While courts can't blame him for stuff he might've done (rightfully so), society shouldn't be so forgiving towards them.

OK, I'll just kill everybody I see today - they are all potential rapists after all. Wait, are you saying we can actually use that, whatchacallit, coh-moon scent? Scene? Sensation? Or that other one: loh-geek? Hey, not everybody is a geek, you know. I'd say let's throw these big complicated words away and just go with whatever - any attempt at calling bullshit on sensationalism increases crime!

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't doubting the nature of the crime, as you seem to think, but the severity of it. Breaking into someone's house shouldn't be acceptable.

 

[Doom972]

OT: It's good that she managed to stop him, but I have to wonder how did she get an access to a gun? Is it common for 12-year-olds to have access to and learn how to operate one over there?

Out here in the sticks? Yea, it's fairly common for a kid to know how to handle their old man's piece. We teach them young. Heck, I learned how to handle a rifle at 13.

That's awesome, I had to wait until 16.

 

[Strazdas]

so basically what this article says is that a 12 year old girl shot an intruder, that, for all we know, was jut trying to rob the house and didnt even knew the girl was in the closet when he entered the house.
in other words, burgler = rapist according to escapists.

 

[TheMann]

Further evidence that all 12 year old girls should be armed with glocks.

I can't see any good reason not to arm all 12 year old girls with glocks

I see one

*knock knock*

Me (assuming I lived in the USA): Who is it?
Door: Girl scouts.
Me: Oh, OK *opens door*
Girl: Do you want to buy some cookies? *pulls out a Glock* Go ahead, make my day!

Still, glock-in-the-face would be pretty effective way to sell cookies

Spoiler: What, kind of like this?

Sorry, I uh, just read these few posts and had the perfect image for it. So, um, yeah. I'm just gonna back on out of here like nothing happened. Although I will say It's kind of weird how people are winning other peoples arguments. To clarify: two people on this thread arguing about something and the most convincing piece of evidence to win the argument is mentioned by a third person who is arguing with a fourth person, and has no idea that the first two people are even on the thread. I should do a scientific study of this. This study, as with all my scientific endeavors, will be used to enable me to build my death ray and take over the world. That and make whatever sandwich I want materialize at will. Well, off I go.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

so basically what this article says is that a 12 year old girl shot an intruder, that, for all we know, was jut trying to rob the house and didnt even knew the girl was in the closet when he entered the house.
in other words, burgler = rapist according to escapists.

An unimportant distinction in many US locales. Although it varies widely, the majority of states respect the right of the offended homeowner to stand their ground and defend the home with deadly force. The intent of the intruder, be it rape, robbery, or borrowing a cup of PCP, has little or no bearing from a legal perspective. Google "castle doctrine" if you feel inclined to learn more.

I recognize that this concept is absolutely alien to many of my fellow Escapists, particularly those in (or near) Europe. Different strokes, etc., and also stay off my lawn.

 

[senordesol]

First off, you don't know he was after her. Saying "Potential Rapist" in the thread title doesn't mean the probability is strong, or even there. It just means you're baiting for clicks. Second, there's a ton of ways to push an assailant away that don't involve spewing hot lead. The mother could just as easily have said "Get the can of Mace and if it comes to it, aim for the eyes!"

They could've kept a baseball bat, too, or perhaps one of these hand tasers. We're in 2012; if I want to knock a guy out and not kill him, I have a lot of ways to do so.

I just don't get the gun culture, generally speaking. Why does forced entry warrant putting POTENTIALLY DEADLY holes into someone? We've all heard and seen cliché depictions of burglars and have all been told these guys will be armed, but that's actually highly unlikely. Getting in and getting out without making a sound goes a lot better when you're not trying to pack some gear.

Once the man has broken into your house it hardly matters what he's there for; he is committing an illegal act and if he comes into the room where you're holed up - it's reasonable to assume he's not there for your health. So why make it easy on him? Why go out of your way with less effective methods (e.g. If a bunch of UC Davis students can withstand mace; a determined assailant certainly can) when more effective methods are readily available?

 

[scw55]

If you were in a corner with a gun and no way to escape from a person.
You can still bonk them on their head with the 'hilt' of the gun.
You don't have shoot it.

I know girls are made of paper. But I still think a blow to the head would still hurt enough to make the man recoil so you could make another blow. Or at least kick him in the nuts.

Cause a twelve year old should risk getting that close to someone who's broken into her house just to appease the anti-gun whiners, right?

I don't know. Depends what the girl is more scared of:

Using a lethal instrument
An intruder

 

[scw55]

Snip

Yep, because as we know, people who break into people's houses, especially when the person is still home, have safe intentions in mind. /sarcasm

We get it GunsmithKitten. You love guns, you love them with an fiery passion, and you believe that anyone who trespasses on your property is fair game to shoot because they MUST have the absolute worst of intentions. You've made that very very VERY clear.

You don't need to keep proving it to us by posting a counterreply to every single comment that attacks guns on every gun-violence thread on this site just to reiterate essentially these same points again and again.

Believe it or not some people just don't believe that guns make us all safer, don't believe the whole world is out to murder/rape them, and don't think shoot first ask questions later is a smart policy when it comes to home invasion.
No amount of arguing is going to make us suddenly realize how wrong we all are about this topic and how important your gun rights are.

I hope for your own sake that you never end up in a situation like the one above, because I'm about 95% sure you'll end up going to prison for felony (first degree) murder if you do.

You really think he'd go to prison for first degree murder for shooting someone that broke into his house? I can't grasp the logic behind that.

In Britain killing an intruder is murder.
It could be twisted to Manslaughter if you're lucky.
You still killed someone. At the end of the day, there's always less killing-methods of self defence. Understandably if you're in a wardrobe your options are limited.
I would probably hurt the man into unconsciousness myself.

 

[MorganL4]

We quite clearly have a real life Hit Girl

Although is there any proof on the "rapist" thing, or are people sensationalising that part?

Well done to the girl, I'll bet that was an unpleasant surprise for the guy. Rapist or mere burglar, the guy deserved it.

I thinks we're all jumping the gun by assuming the intruder is a rapist when the only crime they committed so far was home invasion.
Also damn, America needs better locks.

Better to assume the person who has broken into your home is a rapist or murderer than let your guard down and give them a chance to take advantage of you.

Yes, if you are the one who's home is being invaded.... But after the fact the media shout be able to differentiate between burglary and rape... Simply tacking that on there is irresponsible on their part.

Is it possible? Yes, but it is technically possible with EVERY home invasion.

 

[Vareoth]

That girl has guts. Also nice she didn't kill him. Though she probably doesn't feel like a hero right now.

Still a little strange that she was able to acquire a handgun and actually fire it. It worked out in this case but have been plenty of accidents with horrible results involving children and firearms.

Still, if I grew up around guns I would probably think about it a lot more freely. But I guess I'll have to make due with shooting crossbow bolts up the arses of would-be burglars/rapists.

 

[Keoul]

Perhaps some dirtbag not breaking in to her house to rob and/or rape her would have saved her from a traumatic experience. Way to blame the victim though.

I never blamed the victim.
The burglar is still the one causing her trauma. If this is the first time they've been broken into fine, but if it's not, then the parents should have taken greater measures to protect their family other than a gun to be given to a 12 year old who has never shot one in her entire life.

Also why on Earth would you add "to rob and/or rape her", he didn't rape her, you're jumping to conclusions just because we went for the closet, he could have just wanted to stop her from calling for help.
Jumping to conclusions is what's got you making that post and accusing for something I didn't even do.

 

[Faraja]

Snip

Yep, because as we know, people who break into people's houses, especially when the person is still home, have safe intentions in mind. /sarcasm

We get it GunsmithKitten. You love guns, you love them with an fiery passion, and you believe that anyone who trespasses on your property is fair game to shoot because they MUST have the absolute worst of intentions. You've made that very very VERY clear.

You don't need to keep proving it to us by posting a counterreply to every single comment that attacks guns on every gun-violence thread on this site just to reiterate essentially these same points again and again.

Believe it or not some people just don't believe that guns make us all safer, don't believe the whole world is out to murder/rape them, and don't think shoot first ask questions later is a smart policy when it comes to home invasion.
No amount of arguing is going to make us suddenly realize how wrong we all are about this topic and how important your gun rights are.

I hope for your own sake that you never end up in a situation like the one above, because I'm about 95% sure you'll end up going to prison for felony (first degree) murder if you do.

You really think he'd go to prison for first degree murder for shooting someone that broke into his house? I can't grasp the logic behind that.

In Britain killing an intruder is murder.
It could be twisted to Manslaughter if you're lucky.
You still killed someone. At the end of the day, there's always less killing-methods of self defence. Understandably if you're in a wardrobe your options are limited.
I would probably hurt the man into unconsciousness myself.

First, you'd only hurt the guy if you were more skilled, stronger, and/or had an iron will. There aren't a lot of methods for 12 year old girls to defend themselves from grown men. Unless all British girls are master martial artists.
Second, if your country really thinks you shouldn't be allowed to take out someone who could have every intention of taking you out, there are some issues. There's a saying, that I'm about to butcher, that goes something like; "the only person who knows how a break in turns out, is the guy doing the break in." It's one thing for you to personally say you wouldn't, but for your government to say no, I can't see how people could go along with that.
Maybe that's just my American distrust of the government and individualism (for lack of a better word) talking.

 

[scw55]

Snip

Yep, because as we know, people who break into people's houses, especially when the person is still home, have safe intentions in mind. /sarcasm

We get it GunsmithKitten. You love guns, you love them with an fiery passion, and you believe that anyone who trespasses on your property is fair game to shoot because they MUST have the absolute worst of intentions. You've made that very very VERY clear.

You don't need to keep proving it to us by posting a counterreply to every single comment that attacks guns on every gun-violence thread on this site just to reiterate essentially these same points again and again.

Believe it or not some people just don't believe that guns make us all safer, don't believe the whole world is out to murder/rape them, and don't think shoot first ask questions later is a smart policy when it comes to home invasion.
No amount of arguing is going to make us suddenly realize how wrong we all are about this topic and how important your gun rights are.

I hope for your own sake that you never end up in a situation like the one above, because I'm about 95% sure you'll end up going to prison for felony (first degree) murder if you do.

You really think he'd go to prison for first degree murder for shooting someone that broke into his house? I can't grasp the logic behind that.

In Britain killing an intruder is murder.
It could be twisted to Manslaughter if you're lucky.
You still killed someone. At the end of the day, there's always less killing-methods of self defence. Understandably if you're in a wardrobe your options are limited.
I would probably hurt the man into unconsciousness myself.

First, you'd only hurt the guy if you were more skilled, stronger, and/or had an iron will. There aren't a lot of methods for 12 year old girls to defend themselves from grown men. Unless all British girls are master martial artists.
Second, if your country really thinks you shouldn't be allowed to take out someone who could have every intention of taking you out, there are some issues. There's a saying, that I'm about to butcher, that goes something like; "the only person who knows how a break in turns out, is the guy doing the break in." It's one thing for you to personally say you wouldn't, but for your government to say no, I can't see how people could go along with that.
Maybe that's just my American distrust of the government and individualism (for lack of a better word) talking.

Usually prevention of the event is better than murdering someone.