6th Grader Shoots Potential Rapist

[DoPo]

Wait, are you defending a child threatening burglar on the grounds that he isn't actually a rapist? What is this, I don't even...

For all the information we have, the intruder could have been a potentially a murderer, a kidnapper, or a zombie. Yeah, what would the walking dead want with a TV?

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

Italics = joke. Yeah, I don't either. Care to explain where I defended anyone, aside from pointing out that there is no actual evidence to suggest he was going to rape the girl? I mean, I even pointed out that the article admitted being sensationalist. Or are you condemning the man as a rapist, on the grounds that it's in the title?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

A guy who came to burgle a few pennies worth of electronics almost was murdered by a 12 year old, who's now traumatised for the rest of her life, with the guy probably permanently injured and scarred, by reckless paranoid parents who both own firearms, and litter them around the house so a small child can get a hold of them.

It would take a sick deranged NRA mind to find anything awesome about that sad lose-lose situation.

I was wondering when you'd come in to condemn this. Tell us, my friend, what should a 12 year old girl do when she's cornered in a house when a stranger (who broke in) is roaming through, and tries opening the door she's behind? Because I'd do what she did: retreat and point a gun at the door.

Also, I find this odd that you say she almost murdered him. You do know no DA in the states would file charges if she'd shot him and he died? Because if he did, he wouldn't be a DA for long. If you honestly think charges should be filed, you're SOL. As you see, the law protects her. See this [http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782]. You can say she almost killed him, but you cannot factually say she almost murdered him. As we've explained to you before, killing and murder are not interchangeable words in the English language. I don't know how it is in Dutch, but the two have rather different meanings in English.

Also, again, you claim she's traumatized, but provide no proof of it. The only thing we see now is her saying"

"When I had the gun, I didn't think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody," the 6th grader recalled. "I think it's going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore."

So there's that.

EDIT: I take it that means you're also changing your stance on desiring to kill anarchists, yes?

No, in fact I'd like to kill anarchists. Strangely enough though, no anarchist I ever met agrees to this, while they claim to defend an ideology that teaches that if I'm powerfull enough, it's perfectly acceptable and even good for me to kill them; any form of authority that should stop me from killing anarchists, is bad according to anarchists.
It's odd really. They seem to want anarchy just for themselves, but not for others.

If not a single self-proclaimed anarchist even believes in the most basic tenets of anarchy, how can they be taken seriously.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

If I was stealing a flat screen television from the living room the last thing I'd want is for some kid to dial up the cops on their mobile or cordless home phone. Still, full points for the little girl. She has done what many adult gun owners have failed to do, and that is manage to shoot a real 'baddie' instead of a family member or friend.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

How about getting out of the house? No chance of murders, trauma, or anything of that. Fyi: People dying is a bad thing.

Requiring that people retreat from their own home (or suffer any unlawful offense against them without resistance) is simply something I cannot abide by. I'd also argue that it's suicidal stupidity to break into a home in a state where gun ownership is the norm. If this were California or New York City, I could see how one would think they'd be able to get away without trouble. But Oklahoma? Heck, they have laws similar to my state. No waiting period, no license to buy, private sales are legal, and castle doctrine is in effect. The state constitution even states

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. "

And if not, then not. No burglar ever cares about finding 12 year old. They want to steal things to sell for money.

The problem is that we have to assume that the person here is only here to steal stuff.

As for the anarchists, that's not something I meant obviously. It's merely taking a piss at the hypocrisy and naivity of people who call themselves that. They advocate 'might makes right' without knowing why. Childsplay to turn the tables on them and picture them as victims of that might to see if they'd still like that.

Look, this is an instance when we're in partial agreement. I too view anarchism as a bit naïve and overly idealistic. But you're not making a good point by resorting to the hyperbolic claim of violence. It could be better worded (and not taken as a threat) by saying something along the lines of "Under anarchism, the only real law is the idea of 'might makes right'. In such a situation, can you honestly say you're comfortable with a person who is stronger than you trying to attack or kill you using this principle as a defense?"

 

[Vareoth]

That girl has guts.

Yes, it takes a lot of guts to shoot people, especially in this country, where we also find courage in shooting young men armed with skittles...

Spoiler: ...or unarmed burglars that were going to be caught anyway and weren't even a immanent threat.

She is twelve. You're kind of missing the point there...

And where I grew up (LA county) it wasn't uncommon for 12 year old kids to shoot and stab others either. My point is that in a gun culture like America bravery and pulling a trigger are, despite what anyone says, mutually exclusive. Armed forces notwithstanding.

Fair enough. Maybe I just don't have the necessary insight with gun crimes involving children since that rarely happens where I live.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

How about getting out of the house? No chance of murders, trauma, or anything of that. Fyi: People dying is a bad thing.

You assume retreat from the home is possible. Seems strange considering most houses are constructed with limited points of entry and exit.

And if not, then not. No burglar ever cares about finding 12 year old. They want to steal things to sell for money.

Yes, because burglary has never included murder or rape as part of the process. Indeed, in instances of home invasion where the residents are at home, you find that murder and rape are relatively common.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

So, to be clear, your basis for self defense is to cause sufficient injury to make the person lose consciousness? Ignoring for a moment that performing this task unarmed is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve for someone without extensive training and experience in the field of causing injury with their bare hands, consider for a moment what you just suggested.

What injury does it take to cause someone to lose consciousness? You'll find, generally, that the only reliable way to achieve this is to damage the brain or cause some major interruption of the nervous system. Simply put, if you damage the correct points of the brain, a person can lose consciousness quickly. Trouble is, brain injuries are, by their very nature, incredibly dangerous. A person can die from a minor concussion and only lose consciousness when they slip into a coma they never recover from.

Strangulation is one way to achieve the latter though this can easily lead to death given the act of maintaining a choke hold can easily crush various bits of the body that need to remain intact. A blood choke is more efficient and less lethal but harder to achieve by a great margin. A sure way to achieve the same effect as the blood choke is directly via exsanguination though this generally involves severe trauma especially given the body has various responses in crisis moments that help prevent a quick death by blood loss.

So, that leaves me with the following conclusion: you simply do not have the right of self defense. In any case that is likely to halt an attacker, you have a possibility of inflicting lethal damage. You have plenty of options to cause pain and injury but never underestimate the fact that pain does not nor will it ever halt a determined attack. Crippling injury is what does this. Especially when you consider that in a mortal struggle, your body doesn't waste a lot of time with pain processing since this directly opposes the goal of getting out of the situation alive.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

Where was Big Daddy when this happened?

Mr. Bubbles was murdering the splicers that were one house over ^____^

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

You don't value any human life outside your own and consider murder justifyable. I do value life and don't think murder is justifyable.

Correction there, captain. I said that under specific circumstances, the killing of another human being, while not the prefered solution, is justified or at the very least, excusable. Actually, I do care about the life of other people. I care about the victims of crime, one could say more so than I do about the actual criminals.

So why don't you just stop jumping me in any instance of gun violence?

I wasn't aware trying to engage you in dialogue over an issue you clearly have an interest in was "jumping" on you.

We all know the reasoning behind my condemnation of murder is airtight.

I think this marks yet another time I've tried to explain the difference between killing and murder to you. Let me ask the question simply: Do you believe there exists a set of circumstances possible where the use of lethal force against another human being is justified?

We all know the gun lobby arguments are fake and rely on a lack of justice of any kind.

I dunno why you bring the gun lobby into this. I don't think I've even mentioned the NRA, NRA-ILA, NSSF, SAS, SAF, or CCRKBA in this thread.

 

[gphjr14]

I'm glad the girl got out of it ok and the scumbag was caught. However. I'm seeing this less as an argument for "let's have more guns" and more an argument for "let's have less shitty people".

We in America don't seek to improve the underlining conditions that lead to crime (education, recognizing mental problems) we just buy more guns and fancy security systems

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

You assume retreat from the home is possible

And it is. You open the door, and you walk outside. What a revelation.

Depending upon the layout of the home and the point at which an intruder, well, intrudes, your scenario can easily be undone. My own home has one exit. All windows exit to a 30 foot drop. My home is not unique in such a layout. In my apartment complex alone, there are dozens of people living with the same layout.

Other layouts mean that one could cut off retreat avenues by occupying a single hallway or juncture.

Is retreat sometimes possible? Certainly. But it is not, by any stretch, always possible.

Yes, because burglary has never included murder or rape as part of the process.

Because after all, if there's ever been a single case of that in a house, this clearly warrants the immediate murder of anyone who walks onto our lawn, doesn't it?

Straw man argument. We are not discussing trespassing upon one's lawn. We are discussing forced entry into a residence.

In reality, the odds of that are so small that fearing it is pretty much an indicator someone's suffering from a paranoid persecution complex.

The odds of invasion are small, all told. Across the US, over a 20 year span, most people (according to the FBI, ~ 80%) will have their residence robbed. Only a tiny fraction of those events occur when the residents are known to be home.

The reasons for this are simple enough: most people simply attempting a robbery would like to get away with it. Having witnesses to the act certainly gets in the way. In many cases, when a robber attempts to enter a home believed to be empty but is revealed to be occupied, in many cases the would be robber simply leaves.

When they do not leave upon the revelation that the residence is occupied, problems start to rise. There is the aforementioned problem of witnesses and one of the classic motives for murder is to cover up a crime (the robbery for example). Even when considering the normal case of a normal person with normal capacities for reason and empathy, suddenly giving them a strong motivation for murder is enough to indicate an increase the residents risk to life and limb.

Then there are the cases where a home is entered unlawfully when the residents are known to be home. In these cases, violence of some sort is incredibly common.

Thus it is possible to recognize both the unlikely nature that a home invasion will occur to any particular person on any particular evening while simultaneously understanding that should one occur while the person is at home, statistics indicate that person is at great risk.

And that's why we can never agree: You don't value any human life outside your own and consider murder justifyable.

It is perfectly possible to place value on life while simultaneously being willing to end another life. I value my life. I value my fiance's life. I just value them more than a strangers and, should it be revealed that my life of my fiance's life is at risk, I'm perfectly willing to meet that threat with lethal intent. Respect does not mean something is sacrosanct.

I do value life and don't think murder is justifyable.

Here is the real question: if you were faced with immediate and obvious threat to your life, would you meet that threat with violence of any sort or would you simply wait around to die?

I ask because a willingness to fight means that, in spite of your attempt to stand in violation of one of the fundamental motivations of a living thing, you are still willing to cause harm. Sufficient harm to stop a lethal threat can easily itself be lethal.

There is a difference between wanting to use force and being willing. I don't ever want to use lethal force. Hell, given the opportunity in such a situation where I was presented with such a threat, were there an option to retreat I'd take it. If there was an option to exit the scenario using as little force as possible I'd take it. But, that said, if my personal safety is threatened I will exert all the force I can muster to get myself out of that situation.

 

[invadergir]

I see we don't have any responsible gun-owners here. Why does a 12-year-old have access to a loaded hand-gun? Not only are the parents apparently not present at the time of the break-in, but they have an unsecured loaded hand-gun with a completely unsupervised 12 year old?

Bad parenting.

 

[Yan007]

Haven't read past page 2, but most of what I did read was expected. Blaming the girl or looking down on what she did is scummy. I'm pretty sure someone here probably suggested she should have made sure to shoot him in the foot or ask him why he is here then beg for him to leave instead.

If someone comes into my home uninvited then that person has a high chance of dying. I don't care if you just want to steal my TV or rape my wife/kids/dog - everyone in my home will have two goals: surviving and taking you down. We'll use blades,guns,sticks,books, whatever we can to stop you and make sure you would wish for death.

 

[invadergir]

I see we don't have any responsible gun-owners here. Why does a 12-year-old have access to a loaded hand-gun? Not only are the parents apparently not present at the time of the break-in, but they have an unsecured loaded hand-gun with a completely unsupervised 12 year old?

Bad parenting.

Who knows. Maybe she had proper training for years and the parents decided that she is responsible enough and trained enough to have access to a firearm?
And how is it the parents fault that the criminal decided to break in when they weren't at home? A 12 year old is certainly old enough to be left alone for a day / night so giving them any kind of faul there (how should've they seen the break-in coming?) has no ground.

Fast conclusions, huh?

Absolutely not. I have to ask:

1) Do you personally own a gun and 2)Do you have a child.

 

[Stu35]

In Britain killing an intruder is murder.

False.

In Britain killing an intruder who is retreating is murder.

There are some other subtleties too, but that's the main one right now. We still don't quite have the American "property = life" approach to use of lethal force, but we're a hell of a lot better than mainland Europe.

 

[asinann]

That's pretty awesome, congratulations to the kid, although I disagree with the idea of people keeping guns in their houses (or on their person). For every rare case of a person possibly saved like this, there's accidents and the use of guns for crime to consider. I understand it may be different for our American friends since they have a large border with a poor crime-ridden country (no offence any Mexicans) which guns can leak over into the hands of criminals but I stand by my position in theory at-least.

TL;DR: Please flame me

As much as gun crime and violence is sensationalized and called the greatest evil in America, more people die in car accidents every year in the US. There are fewer drivers than guns in the US. Does this mean cars should not be driven?