6th Grader Shoots Potential Rapist

[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.

 

[Chunga the Great]

"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."

Sounds like she'll grow up to be an excellent american girl, thinking guns will make her safe and solve all her problems.

Here we go again....

Oh Escapist Forums, how you never change.

 

[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.

Usually prevention of the event is better than murdering someone.

I don't disagree with that statement. Doesn't really solve the problem of what happens if prevention isn't enough, though.

 

[xshadowscreamx]

best news i have heard all day..

 

[senordesol]

Dear Europe:

Our 12-year-old girls have bigger balls than your toughest criminals. The next time you give us any shit, we will unleash McKenzie on you.

Sincerely,
America

Spoiler: For those of you who are not yet in love with McKenzie

Damn. Her dad's not even gonna have to any "Break her heart: I'll break your legs" discussions with her future boyfriends, all he has to do is show them those videos.

 

[Petromir]

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.

False. In England you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. This does in fact include bladed weapons and firearms (assuming thy are legally held). The law is being looked at to be made clearer for what reasonable is.

As it stands there is a fear for you life test genrally used if it can be believed you had reason to fear for your life then lethal force is acceptiable till that reason dissapates. There have been a few high profile cases on this over the last decade or so and all the ones that have had issues with this there are clear reasons to suspect that the force was not used in self defences. The highest profile one the intruder was shot in the back while seemingly tring to flee, the other that comes to mind after an intial fight in the house the housholder chased the asslaint down the street to continue hurting him.

Given in the UK we've licensensd children to hold shotguns then its not like we can be terribly shocked at in America with much laxer gun controls a 12 year old got hold of a pistol.

In Britan had the girl run to the gun safe (we'll assume she knows the code and that its HER gun) loaded it and unloaded both barrels when the intruder approached her she'd be legally in the clear (reasonable force in any encounter escalates significantly, the smaller and lacking in phisical power the person in place to use the argument of it is).

I have deliberately covered all the UK legal bases here, Evrything about the posssesion and the storage of the firearm was correct (normally to use a shotgun under said license a child that young requires a licensed 18+ year old to use it to hunt or target shoot)and the child in question had clear reason to be fearful.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Fair play to her, even if he didn't want to rape her, you can't take that chance.

Either way he shouldn't have been in the house in the first place. Serves him right and if he was a potential rapist then I think Big Bubba Johnson's gonna deal out some ironic justice during shower time.

 

[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.

I don't disagree with that statement. Doesn't really solve the problem of what happens if prevention isn't enough, though.

Well that gets sorted out after the event.

 

[Treblaine]

My friends ask me why they call this site "The Escapist"

I say: "Well it's where we have serious discussions about rape, gender and violent crime and how awful they are yet have conflicting real world elements"

They say that's not exactly 'Escapism'.

I say: "Well, you have to accept a certain amount of mission creep. I mean if you actually want to talk about video games you should go to a serious site like /V/ or something".

On-topic: what reason do they think he might be a rapist, rather than merely "could be a rapist". Though I really don't care if he was just a burglar, better shoot first and ask questions later than be sorry. Though when you do ask questions later, don't act like it was the circumstance that gave the maximum justification for shooting.