I will understand if you decide not to allow this question on your blog. But I listed to the entire tape. It was heartbreaking. Some people tried to defend the person who broke into the house and suggested that she should shoot to wound or wait to find out what he wanted. He threw patio furniture and broke into her house. In Oklahoma there is no duty to retreat.The National Examiner reports on a dramatic shooting in Oklahoma in which a woman defended herself from an intruder by using lethal force.
I'm particularly impressed with the anguish this woman went through and how she had to struggle with her own conscience about the possibility of taking another person's life, even in the face of a potential threat to her own. It speaks volumes about her character and for those opposed to gun ownership, a lot of what gun ownership is about is character --it's what separates you from the "cowboy," as we used to call them, that reckless loose cannon who thinks he's tough because he's got a gun. Not this woman. It's character that separates the responsible, conscientious gun owner from the gun-toting criminal thug.
I like that description very much. Given the same exact circumstances, if the homeowner starts spouting off about how people who break into others' houses get what they deserve and they asked for it, especially if they refer to them as "scumbags," I come away with a different impression.
Still, if the guy is unarmed and had shown indications of being lost or confused, I'd have liked to see her shoot him in the knees. But, truthfully, I tend to think of this woman is a courageous person who did what she had to do.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Still, if the guy is unarmed and had shown indications of being lost or confused, I'd have liked to see her shoot him in the knees."
ReplyDeleteI've always had a problem with those who think you can "shoot to wound".
First, a gun shot to any part of the body can be fatal. That's why guns are called lethal weapons and not less-than-lethal weapons. And even less-than-lethal weapons can be lethal under certain conditions.
Second, intentionally "shooting to wound" can get you in a lot of legal trouble. Especially in civil courts of our sue-happy nation.
Third, "shooting to wound" means you're not shooting at center mass. If you're not shooting at center mass, that means you're shooting at the extremities: The smallest, fastest moving parts on the human body. Add to that the fact you're shooting under extreme stress, and there is a very high chance you will miss, thus giving your aggressor a chance to get that much closer to you.
Mikeb, you're essentially wanting to see someone not only do something that may get them in trouble with the law, but may also get them killed. Not a good look.
Still, if the guy is unarmed and had shown indications of being lost or confused, I'd have liked to see her shoot him in the knees.
ReplyDeleteshooting to wound is
1. A good way to end up dead
2. If you survive, a good way to end up in jail.
MikeB: “I like that description very much. Given the same exact circumstances, if the homeowner starts spouting off about how people who break into others' houses get what they deserve and they asked for it, especially if they refer to them as "scumbags," I come away with a different impression.”
ReplyDeleteI am surprised you’d take that approach. I can assure you that it would sicken me to have to kill a person. It is nice to know that would make my DGU more legitimate in your eyes, but I think the criteria should be based on facts alone.
-TS
TS - I'm not the least bit surprised that part of MikeB's test for determining whether a shooting was "justified" hinges on the "feelings" of the person who had to defend himself rather than objective facts.
ReplyDeleteLiberals and their feelings....
Per usual, the gunloons circulate this story like a holy relic.
ReplyDeleteBut reality is very different. For every story like Gecko's, I can easily find 10 where a gun is used improperly--with tragic results--by the gunloon.
Gecko talks about responsibility; but it's all talk. Responsibility is about commitment and accountability. Let's talk a bit about what responsibility really means.
I'm a licensed professional. This means I studied and successfully passed exams attesting to my competency. I periodically have to be reexamined to ensure I keep current and haven't lost competency. If I screw up, I can be fined and/or have my license suspended or revoked. I screw up bad enough, I can go to jail. I can also lose my license for things having nothing to do with the performance of my profession. I can also lose my license if I cannot meet certain physical standards.
Yet, Gecko talks about "responsibility." This, despite the fact that anyone can buy a gun regardless of physical or mental health. They can get a gun despite having a criminal record or having an alcohol/substance abuse problem. They aren't required to get any training and the training that exists has no standards.
Responsibility?
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "I'm a licensed professional."
ReplyDeleteI might just agree with JadeGold here.
Perhaps someone who is a "professional" gunowner -- someone whose gun(s) are used in a professional capacity or who hires out his gun-related services to others -- should be trained and licensed as JadeGold suggests.
Of course, if JadeGold is claiming that be a mandatory requirement for mere private gun ownership, then his analogy is revealed to be bogus.
Thanks JadeGold for a wonderful synopsis of the double standard.
ReplyDeleteTS said, "It is nice to know that would make my DGU more legitimate in your eyes, but I think the criteria should be based on facts alone."
ReplyDeleteI agree, but the problem is the "facts" are often only known to the shooter. As someone reading an account of the incident after the fact, I don't pretend to know anything, that's why I'm talking about impressions. And, yes the attitude of the shooter does affect that. Someone who expresses remorse seems much more likely to have been justified than your tough-talking bully boy.
MikeB: “And, yes the attitude of the shooter does affect that. Someone who expresses remorse seems much more likely to have been justified than your tough-talking bully boy.”
ReplyDeleteI think it is perfectly natural to carry some anger after being attacked or your family being attacked. Ideally enough forensic evidence is left behind to determine if the facts agree with what the defender says.
-TS