6th Grader Shoots Potential Rapist

[spartan231490]

26% of all cases WHERE A RESIDENT WAS AT HOME.
I did not speak of rape and murder, I spoke of attack.

Pointless comparison. Getting bitchslapped by a panicked burglar who's fearing for his life in a paranoid gun culture where he can be legally murdered, isn't proof that burglars are dangerous.

If you want to change this situation, you need to ban gun ownership, which is the source of this elevated level of violence, so the situation in the US will start to resemble a normal situation, where burglars run away at the least hint of trouble in 99,9% of the cases, with the 0,1% of cases being drug criminals trying to rip eachother off.

So false, gun bans don't reduce crime. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.guncite.com/Kleck-Hogan.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
http://www.largo.org/effects.html

Also, if you would actually read his source instead of just dismissing it out of hand without any evidence to support your claim, you would see that in 9% of cases where someone was in the home when it was burglarized, they were seriously injured, and in 3% they were in fact raped. Would you force a little girl to take that big of a risk of being raped, just to preserve the health of a definite burglar, and probable assailant/rapist? If so, you have some fucked up priorities. I would point out that that 3% risk is far far higher than the risk of being murdered by an individual using a firearm, or victimized in any way, which you see as constituting a large enough threat to ban firearms, so do you still say the much much much larger 3% risk of rape, and 9% risk of serious injury don't validate defending yourself?

 

[Ledan]

1: Kick Ass is over rated and about as deep as a kiddie pool during a drought.
2: Aren't we glad that the girl is safe? I sure am!
3: This:

The intruder got a gunshot and he's about to get his booty violated in the cell block.

Job well done, 12 year old girl.

Is unacceptable.
So, is what your trying to tell me is that rape is a good thing in some cases?
Like, if it's an "ironic" punishment for a male criminal?
What if the intruder had been female? Would you have made the same "joke"?
No, because rape can't really be considered "appropriate" or "laughable" unless the victim's a man.
If we strip away the societal context of the joke, you've basically now said that SOME rape is ok. Of course, you basically get away with it, because the listeners are supposed to find the perpetrator reprehensible/sub-human and therefore an acceptable target for anything.
For example, I could reasonably be forgiven for saying "If I knew a Nazi, I'd decapitate him, peel the flesh from his face, place my fingers in his still dripping eye sockets, and bowl his recently scalped cranium into a woodchipper. I would then use the brain matter to feed other nazis". Sure, that example is extreme, but if we attach the word "Nazi" to the beginning why does it strangely feel more acceptable? Even with the word "nazi" added in as my "get out of jail free card", I've still just admitted to desiring the brutal murder, desecration, and mutilation of another man because I disagree with his personal philosophy.
Is that REALLY the society we want to live in?
Please reconsider this opinion.

Actually, I'd be for the joke even if said potential rapist was a female.

You know why?

CAUSE ITS A FUCKING RAPIST! Yeah a rape joke is okay if the butt of the joke falls on a RAPIST.

Also, did you just describe the desire to genocide entire groups of Gays, Gypsies and Jews as "Personal Philosophy"?

Let's leave the ex reality show hosts out of this...
1: We're not talking about rape jokes, we're talking about your amusement at the concept of rape being inflicted as an ironic or just punishment. Again, is some Rape ok in your mind?
2: Like I said, it's an extreme example. This was not meant to imply that atrocities committed by the Nazis were somehow excusable as a "point of view". However, what I'm tying to get across is that MAYBE it's a bad idea to answer ugliness with ugliness. Maybe, it's better to try and move forward as human beings, rather than satisfying ourselves with cheap cathartic crap.

1. Yes, Rape is okay if it befalls a person that is pro-genocide... committed an act of rape themselves.... or fucks a child. Or at least okay to the point that I do not care nor do I have any basic human sympathy for them. Seriously, they are bad people.

I don't support a society where we actively try to punish people, but if a villian prays upon a villian by sheer happenstance? I fail to see how that isn't the universe sorting out it's karma.

Barring the non-existence of "karma" or universal "order", of course.
I can't help but feel that the preservation of my humanity is somehow more important than paying imaginary tribute to likely fictional, highly subjective, philosophical construct.
Again, such as karma or any universal or objective interpretation of the concept of "justice".

Also, the fact that you can pretend to deprive yourself of humanity (while talking on the internet, how brave...) isn't so much a philosophical standpoint or even really a show of strength to the "harsh and unforgiving" world, as much as it is a cop out. Opposed, of course, to taking a hard and objective look at what amount to be difficult and heart rending subjects.

Yes how brave of me, with an account that has my real name... linked to not only my personal facebook account, twitter, but also a website where I show videos of myself, yes... Clearly I'm talking tough behind an anonymous shield. It's not like my name is Nicholas Rehfeldt or anything, and I'm certainly not from Long Island.


And really dude, Jesus Christ. No one is saying we lock the guy up in chains and tell a 400 pound man name tiny to go to town on his ass. But if so happens during the course of a potential rapist life he gets raped himself? Good. These aren't people like you and me, people that can have empathy for others. People that would go, sure it would be nice to lord my power over another individual for a while, but it would make the other person feel sad and upset and I don't want that.

The people that do such things lack basic humanity. They lack the ability to care about others. I don't understand why then it would be wrong of me to hear of a rapist getting raped by another and think anything other than good. They'll never rehabilitate. They'll never feel sorry for their crimes against humanity. If they could possibly understand that THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You act as though I callously came to this decision quickly. No, I do believe in the moral high ground. That we have to do the right thing simply because it is, but if tragedy happens to be fall someone so monstrous by sheer coincidence? I give not a fuck. In this case, the "victim" would be a potential child fucker. IF that's true, as someone pointed out I don't know, then I really wouldn't care if someone stabs him in prison. He fucked a kid, he's as evil as the fucker that shot that six year old watching Batman over the summer.

So, you have no empathy for people who have no empathy for other people...... ergo you wouldn't have empathy for someone like that (who has no empathy for people with no empathy) either?

 

[deeman010]

26% of all cases WHERE A RESIDENT WAS AT HOME.
I did not speak of rape and murder, I spoke of attack.

Pointless comparison. Getting bitchslapped by a panicked burglar who's fearing for his life in a paranoid gun culture where he can be legally murdered, isn't proof that burglars are dangerous.

If you want to change this situation, you need to ban gun ownership, which is the source of this elevated level of violence, so the situation in the US will start to resemble a normal situation, where burglars run away at the least hint of trouble in 99,9% of the cases, with the 0,1% of cases being drug criminals trying to rip eachother off.

A "normal" situation would entail that there was zero intention and action on the part of the robber, basically meaning that the thief/ intruder never took action and therefore stayed a non-threat to everyone. This was not a "normal" situation. I also agree with almost everyone else here, show some proof like what the rest have done. Don't just give your plain opinion and expect it to sway everyone to your side.

By the way, what is becoming more and more common here in my country, the Philippines, is that the assailant either kills you to get your car/wallet/etc... or they let you get out alive (something that is statistically decreasing here, btw being alive is also helped by begging). They don't give a **** about you, they do not even view you as a fellow human being. You are obstacle standing between him/her and the food or money that they need to survive. You are expendable to them.

When somebody is already trying to kill you or even if they aren't, let's just say that they want to hurt someone you love. Will YOU be willing to take that chance?

For arguments sake, let's just say that on the super off chance (according to you: 0.1%) that something happens to you or someone you love, how good are you at begging for your life? Because I suck at begging for my life, and I know that I am never going to take that chance because I don't gamble with my life or the lives of those that I care about. I'm not sure about what you prefer to do though.

 

[ODWX9K]

Sauce: http://yilb.com/12-year-old-shoots-rapist/
Details: http://news.yahoo.com/okla-girl-12-shoots-intruder-during-home-burglary-120453440--abc-news-topstories.html

So this 12-year-old girl hears an intruder entering the house, hides in the closet, and when the intruder comes for her she fires her family's .40cal glock thru the door and hits him. He's arrested, little girl is safe.

.........AWESOME!

You're thoughts, Escapists?

Obviously someone irresponsibly left their gun out, meaning that could've been one dead thief. Her parents should feel bad, she could've killed some poor guy!

It sure bodes well for the gun nuts that the girl got the gun first. Imagine if no one had been home, or she'd been asleep. Now all of a sudden you have an intruder with a gun that he didn't even start out with.

Yeah, an intruder that could still kill a young girl without a gun. A young girl that had no way to defend herself without the gun, even if she were trained in martial arts.

I would know, myself. I'm 5'11 and 250lbs, and I can lift almost anything twice my weight when needed. The only thing that will stop anyone like me is a bullet. Even the average cop is a weak-ass fool with no chance.

 

[JoJo]

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?

Really? When considering whether any product should be legalised or banned, you have to balance the potential benefits against potential harm, not plain numbers. Cars undeniably cause many deaths and injuries but also are of great societal use, I mean think about how much of our economy depends upon people being able to transport themselves many miles quickly and cheaply. Guns on the other hand are useful for what, self defence and recreational shooting? Nowhere near as much benefit to us than cars.

 

[Gothproxy]

As long as the girl isn't charged with anything (and I sincerely hope not, but you never know with lawyers) then I say ROCK ON!!!

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

As long as the girl isn't charged with anything (and I sincerely hope not, but you never know with lawyers) then I say ROCK ON!!!

I wouldn't worry about that. She lives in a Castle Doctrine state, which means she's presumed to have acted in self defense. No DA would file charges against her, because if he did, he wouldn't remain a DA for very long. That, and you'd have trouble finding a jury that would listen to the case rather than saying that she's a hero and taking her out for ice cream.

 

[bobajob]

At least you lot in the states legally have the option to defend yerselves....

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Obviously someone irresponsibly left their gun out, meaning that could've been one dead thief. Her parents should feel bad, she could've killed some poor guy!

She could have killed the poor guy. A twelve year old girl was home alone, when a burglar broke in...an you feel sympathy for the guy... not the girl crying in the closet...but the guy who broke into the house...

Just making sure...

 

[Frankster]

Why cant the little girl from that Slenderman game also have a gun?

"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."

[/quote]

This is the less cool part of the article... "Nothing can hurt me" is not a good attitude for anyone to have, if theres one thing i learnt in my life is no matter how tough or badass you think you are, no one is invincible and overconfidence that nothing can happen to you is a double edged sword...

Silly goose! She should have done what Europeans keep telling us to do! Just stay still, call the cops, wait, and hope for the best. /sarcasm again

That is the best course of action, especially for a young child imo. /Not sarcasm.
And its what kid did, she hid herself in a closet, stayed still and hoped for the best rather then going out to confront intruder on her own, it was a good call, as war arming herself with whatever weapons at hand she could find in case the intruder was looking for her specifically, which was the case. Id say this girl took all the right steps to ensure her survival overall.

 

[kickyourass]

Rapist? That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Anyway, this is pretty awesome, tagging an intruder through a door is impressive enough, the fact that she's 12 and never shot a gun just makes it better.
But as awesome as this all is, it raises one big question for me: why would anyone in their right mind keep LOADED GUNS like this. The completely inexperienced 12 year old girl not only knows exactly where it is, but can pretty easily get her hands on it by the way things are presented (I only assume it was already loaded because if the girl's never even shot a gun before I doubt she knew how to load it by herself). It's good that things ended the way they did, but it sounds like these people have never been to a gun safety class in their lives.

 

[ODWX9K]

Obviously someone irresponsibly left their gun out, meaning that could've been one dead thief. Her parents should feel bad, she could've killed some poor guy!

She could have killed the poor guy. A twelve year old girl was home alone, when a burglar broke in...an you feel sympathy for the guy... not the girl crying in the closet...but the guy who broke into the house...

Just making sure...

...


"Just making sure"?

Yes, I feel sorry for him.. Now he's going to have to live with the embarrassment around all his criminal-minded friends about the time he probably /almost/ got a decent catch only to be stopped by "one of them pesky kids"... I mean really, would you actually want to tell your friends that? I didn't think so.

(Really, I don't feel sorry for him.)

 

[asinann]

You are plain wrong. By your reasoning there would've been never a burglary where the criminal did not attack / kill a witness that suprised him through a panical reaction.

And you'll know how such cases are 'lightning strike odds' rare, which pretty much equals never.

And the few cases where it happens are caused by gun culture, not because of what the average burglars does or doesn't do.

When a burglar finds someone home they normally LEAVE. If they do not leave, they will kill or kidnap whoever is there

Now all you need to do is prove that happens in a significant number of cases.

Fair warning: A paranoid story on a gun lobby website, or a news article about one case ever is not a significant number of cases.

Good luck.

Well, since the FBI doesn't track that specifically, I'll hand you their data.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_12_crime_trends_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

Just a hint, robberies are violent with no death, kidnapping or rape, while burglaries happen when nobody is there. I would post the local news from the last two months where the very thing I described happened three times, but those aren't enough to convince I'm guessing since while they are three different incidents, they are only one story each.

By the way, each time, the bodies were found within a mile of the homes, and the FBI classifies those as murders, not robberies or burglaries.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I don't get what you're saying. Burglars aren't a threat, and there was no indication the victim here was any sort of threat.

Try being a 12 year old girl hiding in a closet when an intruder with unknown intent opens it.

If you can honestly say there's "no threat", you're only fooling yourself

Congratulations, you are glad about the death of another human being, and lose 2 civilisation points as a result.

He's said he'd be happy if she wasn't charged with anything. Also, the burglar lived in this instance.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

So false, gun bans don't reduce crime.

Rubbish, since they compare US states. Which is retarded, because the US as a country is still flooded with guns, making it uncomparable.

In the meantime, the crime rates between gun-loving countries and countries with decent firearms bans speak for themselves. Even the flagship of the gun lobby, Switserland, has a skyrocketing family murder rate due to the presence of firearms in every home, much higher than surrounding countries with worse socio-economical circumstances.

The murder rate in the US is between 2 and 33 times higher than in comparable European countries. Even former eastern block countries are safer.

A "normal" situation would entail that there was zero intention and action on the part of the robber, basically meaning that the thief/ intruder never took action and therefore stayed a non-threat to everyone. This was not a "normal" situation.

I don't get what you're saying. Burglars aren't a threat, and there was no indication the victim here was any sort of threat.

As long as the girl isn't charged with anything (and I sincerely hope not, but you never know with lawyers) then I say ROCK ON!!!

Congratulations, you are glad about the death of another human being, and lose 2 civilisation points as a result.

Just a hint, robberies are violent with no death, kidnapping or rape, while burglaries happen when nobody is there. I would post the local news from the last two months where the very thing I described happened three times, but those aren't enough to convince I'm guessing since while they are three different incidents, they are only one story each.

Why not just admit I was right instead of turning around the issue like that?

how about you actually link sources to all your outlandish claims? i could sit here all day doing the same thing right back in your face, and it wouldn't do a damn thing without sources.

I'm a swat commander doctor military veteran space jump diver, and i know from personal experience that all the information you just gave is false. So there, you're wrong, we're right.

 

[spartan231490]

So false, gun bans don't reduce crime.

Rubbish, since they compare US states. Which is retarded, because the US as a country is still flooded with guns, making it uncomparable.

In the meantime, the crime rates between gun-loving countries and countries with decent firearms bans speak for themselves. Even the flagship of the gun lobby, Switserland, has a skyrocketing family murder rate due to the presence of firearms in every home, much higher than surrounding countries with worse socio-economical circumstances.

The murder rate in the US is between 2 and 33 times higher than in comparable European countries. Even former eastern block countries are safer.

False. If you actually looked at my sources, one of them compares European countries, it's the havard study titled "gun control is counterproductive", and countries with more guns per capita have fewer murders. The data does speak for itself, it shows that gun control and gun bans don't reduce crime or murder rates. Look at the UK, "the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]" That's from the Justfacts.com source I posted earlier. The data is not on your side.

 

[Spearmaster]

When someone invades your home that is what we call a criminal, they are operating outside the law and it cant be known how far they are going to go once they cross that line, here in the United States we remove the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible...we shoot them. It works for the police, it works for the military and it works for the people as well.

This hind sight is 20/20 justice that some subscribe to is almost insultingly naive, do people really want a country where she had to wait in the closet to be assaulted just so we could be sure...then she would not only have been a victim of the invader but the legal system as well, people that operate outside the law should not be protected by it IMO.

 

[JochemHippie]

Which rapist? There was no rapist, just a burgler.

I don't really have all that strong feelings with guns, I can see them being lifesavers in some cases and lifetakers in many others. Honestly I'd prefer a less lethal self-defence, a tazer or pepperspray or something.

Self defense is usually just putting yourself in harms way, better to just cooperate then die trying to defend your wallet.

 

[asinann]

Well, since the FBI doesn't track that specifically, I'll hand you their data.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_12_crime_trends_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

Just a hint, robberies are violent with no death, kidnapping or rape, while burglaries happen when nobody is there. I would post the local news from the last two months where the very thing I described happened three times, but those aren't enough to convince I'm guessing since while they are three different incidents, they are only one story each.

By the way, each time, the bodies were found within a mile of the homes, and the FBI classifies those as murders, not robberies or burglaries.

On the previous page I posted a source of the Department of Justice that states that 26% of burglaries when a resident is at home end with a violent crime (that also includes rape, don't know if it includes homicide). "Residents at home" includes residents that are asleep when the burglary happens - if you are awake and a burglar is in your home it is pretty much guaranteed that he will attack you if you confront him. In most cases burglars have a weapon of some kind (here in germany a screwdriver is classified as a weapon in such cases).

Blahblab or whatever managed to ignore that source and stamp it off as unrealistic because "normal burglaries NEVER EVER EVER end with a violent crime. Yep, that is pretty much his whole argument.

Except I went to the DoJ site and it didn't say anything about it.

And for the last guy that quoted me and REMOVED my link so it looked like I was saying he was right http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_12_crime_trends_by_population_group_2010-2011.xls

 

[Gothproxy]

So false, gun bans don't reduce crime.

Rubbish, since they compare US states. Which is retarded, because the US as a country is still flooded with guns, making it uncomparable.

In the meantime, the crime rates between gun-loving countries and countries with decent firearms bans speak for themselves. Even the flagship of the gun lobby, Switserland, has a skyrocketing family murder rate due to the presence of firearms in every home, much higher than surrounding countries with worse socio-economical circumstances.

The murder rate in the US is between 2 and 33 times higher than in comparable European countries. Even former eastern block countries are safer.

A "normal" situation would entail that there was zero intention and action on the part of the robber, basically meaning that the thief/ intruder never took action and therefore stayed a non-threat to everyone. This was not a "normal" situation.

I don't get what you're saying. Burglars aren't a threat, and there was no indication the victim here was any sort of threat.

As long as the girl isn't charged with anything (and I sincerely hope not, but you never know with lawyers) then I say ROCK ON!!!

Congratulations, you are glad about the death of another human being, and lose 2 civilisation points as a result.

Just a hint, robberies are violent with no death, kidnapping or rape, while burglaries happen when nobody is there. I would post the local news from the last two months where the very thing I described happened three times, but those aren't enough to convince I'm guessing since while they are three different incidents, they are only one story each.

Why not just admit I was right instead of turning around the issue like that?

If I lost 2 Civilization points for being glad a little girl defended herself against someone who would have done her harm, I say ROCK ON!!!

Oh, and if I lost them cause I you think I'm glad someone is dead, you might as well take a few more because there are quite a few people that I'm glad are dead. No shame in my game.