6th Grader Shoots Potential Rapist

[Faraja]

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?

 

[Bvenged]

That's like a scene taken straight out of a movie. I have absolutely no respect for burglars or child rapists, so in my eyes, he deserves it.

I'd agree with you, but when did he rape any children? Or anybody?

Well, since he was going after her, if it was his intent to abuse

That's the thing - if he intended to abuse her. There is very little to suggest he did - namely, he went after the girl. Which has a other plausible explanations other than rape, as I mentioned several times already. But what if he didn't have the intent to have any sort of sexual intercourse with her? This is also a valid conclusion from the information we have. In fact a slightly more valid conclusion, since the only piece of data to suggest any raping is a news article which outright says that he wasn't a rapist.

Dude, I agree - I did say "burglars or child rapists" in a general manner, and I wasn't accusing him of intent to go after the child for all the wrong reasons. For all we knew, he was just heading over to the closet to steal some more stuff. In any case, I think burglary is despicable, as is rape but should someone attempt child rape they deserve nothing less than the worst punishments possible.

 

[wulf3n]

Both of your points don't really stand up.

On the first one; you're assuming that all home invaders are armed. I pretty clearly stated that I didn't know if they were, but I would be.

Second, even if I did miss, they could just as likely bolt once they realize they're in for a fight.

It was just a hypothetical situation, I wasn't saying all burglars are armed, just that if the one robbing you is, you better make sure you're willing to get shot before pulling a gun, because you're giving them a pretty good incentive to kill you.

On the second; that wasn't the headline.

That's why I said IF. I was pondering peoples reactions if the current situation turned out worse than it did.

 

[Faraja]

Both of your points don't really stand up.

On the first one; you're assuming that all home invaders are armed. I pretty clearly stated that I didn't know if they were, but I would be.

Second, even if I did miss, they could just as likely bolt once they realize they're in for a fight.

It was just a hypothetical situation, I wasn't saying all burglars are armed, just that if the one robbing you is, you better make sure you're willing to get shot before pulling a gun, because you're giving them a pretty good incentive to kill you.

On the second; that wasn't the headline.

That's why I said IF. I was pondering peoples reactions if the current situation turned out worse than it did.

Ah, in that case, disregard. I agree that a person should be willing to pull the trigger if they're pointing a gun at someone. With the state of things (including a recent motion on the ballot in Arizona to allow people to sue if they get injured while committing a crime) it'd probably be best to make sure that said person doesn't get back up. Unless you want to be victimized by the courts.

On the second part, the anti-gun people who be complaining about guns. The pro-gun people would probably be wondering why the parents didn't teach her to use the loaded gun in the closet.

 

[Olas]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Olas]

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?

You have it backwards, it's the guy that's going to get close to her. Presumably if he's actually going to rape her he'll have to get within an arms reach of her first. ಠ_ಠ

 

[Olas]

No, but perhaps the killing or violation of a loved one or yourself might do it. Noone deserves to learn their lesson this way, but it's the only way for some.

I'm just gonna ask, how many times has this happened to you? Because there's just no way you became this paranoid all on your own.

 

[J Tyran]

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

The reverse is actually true, guns cross the border into Mexico from the United States. Particularly hand guns.

 

[Benni88]

A lot of people on here seem to be congratulating the girl on her action in this event. Not that I'm unhappy about the girl protecting herself, but this is not a time for medals and back slaps and idle talk about "meh, get her some therapy...".

This is serious shit. When a 12 year old is forced to fire a deadly weapon at an intruder and is then congratulated and held in esteem for being a miniature bad-ass or whatever, there's a definite problem.

I'm pleased that the girl defended herself, but it's no cause for celebration.

 

[Dethenger]

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.

You're right, I think it's kind of a long shot, everyone's just shooting off their mouths.

 

[Rastien]

My general train of thought is pulling a gun on someone is alot of a risk, if in response they pull a gun on you suddenly the stakes have been raised and parties involved are in end game mode.

Living in the UK gun crime isn't as high at all, in the south west even less so, a lot of farmers have rifles and the like but they tend not to shoot each-other with them. Also could just be that the UK is much smaller but i don't believe we have had anything like the level of school shootings in the states.

Given the way America is now it would be nigh on impossible to ban guns so it's a mute point the above statement.

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.

 

[Rastien]

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?

There are many scenarios you can play out here, and I see the anti gun issues are up again. I have no special love for guns, but everything isn't black and white and I for one are glad she had one.

Thats what the article says, he could have just been passing by the place she was hiding robbing the place, i dunno i tend to not take what the papers say as fact at the end of the day they are trying to sell copies.

Also who brakes into a house to rape a 12 yo girl with the parents their i know people can be stupid but really that stupid? that happens? people break into houses to kidnap kids >_>

Hence why you often find "girl cry's rape on an innocent guy and the girl goes to the jail" articles in papers, it's easy reading and all party's will agree the girl who cried rape is evil.

 

[Rastien]

Hence why you often find "girl cry's rape on an innocent guy and the girl goes to the jail" articles in papers, it's easy reading and all party's will agree the girl who cried rape is evil.

Well this is not about her being raped or not. It is about her having the tool to protect her self and did. What his intentions was, and I think anyone would agree, is not something we would chance and let a defenseless kid all alone find out for her self.

Better safe that sorry. It really applies here.

Yeah can't argue with that.

I just have a deep mistrust of what the papers print, i just get a different feeling in the following scenarios:

Man breaks into house walks by closet is shot by girl hiding in closet.
(Fair enough he broke in and got shot his own fault in taking the risk)

Rapist breaks into house, goes to rape 12 yo girl in closet is shot as he approaches her.
(This girl is lucky to be here and is a hero, don't ban guns they save lives!)

 

[PZF]

For once someone gets shot who deserves it.

FINALLY SOMEONE IS SAVED BY HAVING A GUN!!!!

*CELEBRATION*

I mean... How dare that 12 year old have access to a firearm. #Sarcasm

Self defense is a right, owning a gun is a right as well, a Constitutional one too!. She used it right.

Fixed that for ya. You're welcome.

 

[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.