The woman called 911 before just blasting away, and remained in contact with the dispatcher so as to coordinate her actions with police officers actions, so as not to be a danger to law enforcement. There were two intruders, one of whom she recognized as a known stalker, so she clearly identified that these WERE intruders. The man she shot was armed with a lethal weapon. She tried to avoid the confrontation.
She did not apparently feel the need to carry every moment of the day to be safe.
From the Tulsa World news:
Blanchard woman shoots, kills intruder
Dustin Louis Stewart
Blanchard police responded to a home invasion Saturday. Chief Walt Thompson said Justin Shane Martin, 24, of Blanchard, was shot and killed after breaking into a home. A second intruder fled the scene was later surrendered to officers.
Published: 1/2/2012 10:16 AM
Last Modified: 1/2/2012 10:16 AM
BLANCHARD – An 18-year-old woman shot and killed an intruder Saturday after the man forced his way into her home and was carrying a weapon, police said.
Blanchard Police Chief Walt Thompson said Sarah Dawn McKinley was at home with her 3-month-old son when the home invasion occurred about 2 p.m. Saturday. He said Justin Shane Martin, 24, of Blanchard, entered through the front door and was shot by McKinley in the upper torso.Officers arrived at the home at 2227 County Road 1280 and found Martin slumped over a sofa with a single gunshot wound. He was pronounced dead at the scene, police said.
Thompson said another man, identified as Dustin Louis Stewart, 29, of Blanchard, was about to enter the home with Martin when he heard the gunshot. Stewart ran from the scene and later surrendered to officers at the Blanchard Police Department, he said.
Click here to read the complete article at NewsOK.com
If she'd been away from home when this thug and his buddy decided to attack, she might have been glad to have a handgun on her person and might have needed to use it then. But good luck getting Dog Gone to admit that.
ReplyDeleteThis was NOT justified. The attackers could've taken the gun and used it against her. She could've missed and hit an innocent neighbor. The cops arriving on the scene would have no way of differentiating the attackers vs the armed citizen. It's best to just let the home invader take what he wants and not resist. She should have just called 911 and waited for the police.
ReplyDeleteAnd most importantly, she shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
MAgunowner: Really? These two broke into her home and he came at her with a hunting knife. She was on the phone with the police for 20 minutes and still NO help arrived!! They came INTO her house in a threatening manner. Also, they were not there to rob the place. When someone breaks into your home and threatens your life or that of your children, you have fun trying to talk it out with them and hope they don't hurt you. I, on the other hand, will not give them that chance. They had no business there, and the only bad thing about this situation is she couldn't kill them both.
ReplyDeleteIrony, Stacy. Irony.
ReplyDeleteStacy said...
ReplyDeleteMAgunowner: Really? These two broke into her home and he came at her with a hunting knife.
Stacy, MAgunner is making a feeble attempt to be sarcastic, or satiric, or......given this is MAgunner, probably just snarky. It's about all he can manage in lieu of a more intelligent contribution.
She was on the phone with the police for 20 minutes and still NO help arrived!! The interview I saw with her this morning did not suggest it took anything like 20 minutes for help to arrive, and in fact, the woman seemed to find talking with the dispatcher during the experience very helpful and reassuring.
They came INTO her house in a threatening manner.
Um..No. She saw them OUTSIDE the house, recognized at least one of the two, had a hunch as to the identity of the second guy, and called 911.
She shot the one as he opened the door; other than to fall down dead, the first guy did not 'enter' at all. The second fled without getting anywhere near to coming inside.
Also, they were not there to rob the place. I believe the police are still interviewing the second suspect; while robbery may not have been all they had in mind, that may have been part of their intention.
When someone breaks into your home and threatens your life or that of your children, you have fun trying to talk it out with them and hope they don't hurt you. I, on the other hand, will not give them that chance. They had no business there, and the only bad thing about this situation is she couldn't kill them both.
Actually, this woman was quite prepared NOT to shoot them UNLESS they came into her home, after observing that at least one of them was armed. She seemed perfectly calm, and I particularly applaud her placing her baby in a place of safety, and giving him a bottle to keep him quiet before positioning herself to shoot the first guy coming inside.
She coordinated with the dispatcher and law enforcement, she had a clear and conclusive identification of the person and the threat, she used exactly the amount of force appropriate in the time it was appropriate.
I also applaud her for shooting while the range advantage of her firearms still provided a distinct advantage, rather than waving them around hoping to intimidate someone into leaving.
Those are only a few of the reasons I applaud this example of using a firearm in self defense.
dog gone said:
ReplyDelete"She shot the one as he opened the door; other than to fall down dead, the first guy did not 'enter' at all. The second fled without getting anywhere near to coming inside."
But she didn't know his intentions. Maybe he was just a friendly neighbor coming over for tea.
"The interview I saw with her this morning did not suggest it took anything like 20 minutes for help to arrive"
According to news report "McKinley had been on the phone with a 911 operator for about 20 minutes during the ordeal"
Fact check, fact check, fact check.
Problem, MAgunner is too stupid to do irony.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't she use a stun gun or pepper spray to stop them? The guy she shot in cold blood did not even have a gun on him. Seems to me that she used extremely excessive force and needs to be prosecuted for murder.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFrom two previous articles, I conclude that she should have waited till the attackers got stuck in a window, set a doglet on them, and tenderized their skulls with a baseball bat. Or she should have hidden under her bed.
ReplyDeleteThat's the conclusion one would draw from reading articles here. Many of your commentors would do exactly what she did.
Um..No. She saw them OUTSIDE the house, recognized at least one of the two, had a hunch as to the identity of the second guy, and called 911.
ReplyDeleteA friggin hunch, and then in your book she is allowed to kill a man armed with only knife....
Come on in your world she should have been required to get a restraining order, get him in court, confirming his status as a stalker, up until that point he was just an annoying door-to-door salesman making a follow up sales call.....
Why was she allowed to keep her firearms, having just lost her husband 7 days earlier.....
There is no way that she was in any sort of fit mental condition, I doubt that she could have passed one of your potential gun owner mental evaluations......
She shot the one as he opened the door; other than to fall down dead, the first guy did not 'enter' at all. The second fled without getting anywhere near to coming inside.
......
He managed to get into the house far enough that the police... found 24-year-old Justin Shane Martin of Blanchard, slumped over a sofa with a single gunshot wound to the upper torso."
http://www.news9.com/story/16426002/authorities-release-names-in-fatal-blanchard-home-invasion
......
McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.
They better be getting the feds involved since as a 21yo she is not allowed to purchase a pistol.... I mean how do we really know that she did not get her gun illegally since there was no FFL record between her and that pistol.....
Blogger Laci The Dog said...
ReplyDeleteProblem, MAgunner is too stupid to do irony.
http://lacithedog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/the-look.jpg
Have you looked in the mirror lately, too stupid to dress yourself, did your precious mumzies pick out those darling little tasseled loafers, and the Raybans, man talk about trying to put a polish on a turd....
21 Minutes is probably realistic in rural Oklahoma. Response time in my area is 45 minutes to 3 days depending on the type of call.
ReplyDeleteA few weeks ago a goblin broke into my sister's home and her mother-in-law held him at gunpoint. They called 911 and waited. After 1 1/2 hours, they called again and waited another 45 minutes for the deputy to arrive. Fortunately the idiot didn't want any trouble from a couple of women but what if he had other intentions? The woman in your story sure didn't have over 2 hours to wait before the thug was upon her.
Laci The Dog said...
ReplyDelete"Problem, MAgunner is too stupid to do irony."
typical anti rights crowd. Can't make an argument or defend yourself so you make fun of someone else, redirect the conversation or misinterpret a post.
Laci, Really? I was really expecting more from you. I thought you'd come back with some anecdote or some facts or figures, but no, you'll just lay on your death bed and boom, take one last shot.
BTW, I made another post, but apparently it was censored. I guess the anti rights crowd is as apposed to the 1A as they are to the 2A
Legitimate DGUs are rare, but they do happen.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for gun ownership by qualified people.
someguy,
ReplyDeleteYes, one of my comments got censored too. First Amendment, Second Amendment--it's all the same to them.
GC wrote:Yes, one of my comments got censored too. First Amendment, Second Amendment--it's all the same to them.
ReplyDeleteReally? Can you show me where the GOVERNMENT is censoring your comments here?
That would be the 1st Amendment rights.
You DO understand that right? No?
In fact it would be another instance of you conflating editorial discretion with censorship. They are not the same, not even remotely, but you DO like to conflate dissimilar things Greg.
Then we have MA Gunner:
But she didn't know his intentions. Maybe he was just a friendly neighbor coming over for tea.
In fact she did know his intentions, as she observed and then subsequently identified him with a 12 inch hunting knife, going from door to door of her house trying to get in at each door.
then we have According to news report "McKinley had been on the phone with a 911 operator for about 20 minutes during the ordeal"
I heard a recording of a segment of that 911 call with the dispatcher. It is clear that she called to report that the two men were outside; it is not clear that she requested help until a bit further in to the call where she believed they were actually going to gain entry, and requested emergency assistance. So while the call may have lasted 20 minutes, it is not clear that a request for emergency assistance took the full 20 minutes. If I can find out how long it took from where she requested emergency help rather than simply reporting someone outside - a somewhat less urgent situation to be balanced against other possible calls for assistance - I will let you know.
And since when did you become a fan of fact checking? Wow! We've done some good here then!
Was it after you failed to recognize 4 people being shot qualified as a mass shooting?
Or was it after you found out that no one ever uses pubic hair for drug testing, and that it is customarily cut, not 'yanked'?
ROFL
MAgunowner,
ReplyDeleteYou have to understand that Dog Gone only allows sexual innuendo when it's made by Claude Raines, and then only if it's an expression of bisexuality. Otherwise, everything that she says must be interpreted in the purest way possible. She obviously meant the curly hairs that grow out of our brow ridges.
Dog Gone,
You keep forgetting that I see rights as prior to the Constitution, but no matter. You do need to decide if this is an open forum or not. As it stands, you get to toss barbs whenever it pleases you, but sometimes ours are not permitted.
With regard to the woman's decision to shoot in this case, you've told us repeatedly that we have no ability to determine when our lives are in danger from an attacker. And yet you stand up for this person. Would you care to explain how we couldn't have made the same assessment that she made?
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI have heard you argue some of the very points that people posted here. My following comments are not intended in any way to be sarcastic. They reflect the very same reasoning that you have used to condemn other people that have used or suggested using firearms in nearly identical situations.
How did the woman know the man was going to hurt her? So what if he was banging on doors trying to get in ... that's why they call it "breaking and entering".
She said she saw him once before and got a bad feeling -- thinking maybe he was stalking her. How did she know he wasn't simply casing the home? And then he returned to steal their HD television.
Maybe he had a knife to scare the homeowner into compliance for his theft but had no intention of harming her physically. Maybe he was going hunting after the burglary?
And you criticized a poster for merely pointing a gun at two men trying to break down his door to enter a home and continue chasing the woman of the house. You said he should have opened the door and "blasted them with pepper spray" or a taser. Here you hail the woman for keeping her distance.
Maybe all of your comments to other posts about similar situations make perfect sense to you ... and maybe you believe totally in your mind that you are not contradicting yourself. Again, I am not trying be sarcastic or mean spirited. You have to realize, however, that while you may be convinced you are not contradicting yourself, just about everyone else thinks you are.
I thought of four more problems.
ReplyDelete(1) The woman never verbally warned the men telling them to go away, that the police were on the way, that she was armed, and would shoot anyone coming inside.
(2) She didn't try to escape out of the back door while the men were beating on the front door.
(3) Maybe there were extenuating circumstances that excused the men's behavior. For example maybe the men were drunk and confused about which home they were entering. Maybe someone just crashed a car and they were desperately trying to get in and call for help. Maybe someone drugged one of them against their will and then "suggested" he go inside that home.
(4) Home invaders only hurt the homeowners a tiny percentage of the time they break in. So there was really almost no chance the men would hurt her. She overreacted without knowing the men's intentions.
Again, I am not being sarcastic. These are the very points that dog gone and/or MikeB have asserted.
In fact MikeB went so far on that last point that he said no homeowner should ever be armed because the probability of the home invaders injuring the homeowners was so small. He would rather see one homeowner injured/raped/murdered than see 99 home invaders shot/killed just because one out of 100 home invaders would harm the homeowner.
Thomas wrote:
ReplyDeleteCome on in your world she should have been required to get a restraining order, get him in court, confirming his status as a stalker, up until that point he was just an annoying door-to-door salesman making a follow up sales call.....
Um, No. She identified him in her call to the 911 operator. She knew his intent not only from the knife he was clearly carrying, and using to attempt to get in the doors of the house, but also from a previous attempted break in.
She retreated so far as she was able. I have no idea if she did or did not announce that she was armed, the police were on the way or that she intended to shoot.
All of those things would have been desirable, and might have averted the break in. Pepper spray or a stun gun might have worked as well, but given that she was defending not only herself but an infant, the greater force was justified against two people.
Unlike some of you paranoiacs, she made the distinction between a maybe-threat and a real threat.
And she didn't engage in any of the silliness and fantasy world delusions of some of you gun nuts by describing the intruder as a goblin.
That kind of thinking only clarifies how much you are itching to shoot someone, and your desperate need to dehumanize other people.
However regrettable their behavior is, criminals ARE still people. That's why they also have constitutional rights in this country.
You DO believe in the U.S. Constitution don't you?
I did rather wonder what her GSD was doing during all of this.
I also wondered what the minimum legal age is in Oklahoma for possession of a firearm. Presumably the guns belonged to her late husband.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDelete1. What is a GSD?
2. Observe what you're saying. You wonder if the woman here could have retreated farther. Why do you insist on a homeowner retreating in her own home? I have the right to be anywhere I please in my own home. Anyone who breaks in has violated that right.
3. We call such people goblins because they have made themselves outlaws. They have taken themselves outside the bounds of civilized behavior. We didn't ask them to do this. We didn't push them into this life. They have chosen it for themselves. When they offer violence toward innocent people, those people are justified in resisting and in fighting back.
4. That being said, we don't go hunting down law breakers. That's not our job. I've never seen any comment here from my side that suggests that we're looking for someone to shoot. You don't believe us when we tell you this, but shooting someone is for us an action of last resort.
5. I await your responses to Capn Crunch. He makes the same point to you that I've made elsewhere. You praise this woman's actions, while when we talk about the possibility of doing the same thing, if necessary, you call us dangerous and irresponsible. You have yet to state your principles for identifying when and how shooting is justified, so we can't evaluate your standards for this.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"Pepper spray or a stun gun might have worked as well.."
or maybe not
http://articles.mcall.com/2012-01-03/news/mc-slatington-taser-officer-assault-20120103_1_stun-gun-man-punches-police-officer
BTW, you were quoting me, not MAgunner and I've always been a fan of fact checking.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteWhat I am seeing is that your disagreement is almost entirely over the attitude of armed citizens. There is no difference between this event, the woman's actions, and other events and responses that we have discussed where you condemned armed citizens. Except for attitude. You watched an interview and gleaned from a few other details something about this woman's attitude.
I dare say the overwhelming majority of armed citizens have the same attitude as that woman. Sure, there are a few bad apples when it comes to armed citizens -- as there are in any arbitrary group of people. I believe you misinterpret most armed citizens' statements. Here is the basic psychology.
It is a fact that using deadly force against another human, even when justified, is very distasteful ... so distasteful that a full 1/3 or so of the population is basically unable to do it no matter what circumstance they may find themselves facing. For the remaining 2/3 of the population, "mind tricks" such as referring to the aggressor as "the enemy", a "goblin", or various racial epithets eases the internal conflict slightly.
Being victimized is also distasteful. As it turns out, it is almost more distasteful to watch a criminal victimize someone else -- especially a friend or loved one or someone who is weak -- rather than yourself. The natural human response is indignation and a desire to send a clear message of indignation and disapproval to the perpetrators. What you are hearing in people's "machismo" is that indignation and a resolve to stand up to criminal violence.
I believe a lot of what you hear/read from armed citizens does not reflect people who are loose cannons, they are people reacting to violence in a rational way. They have expressed their indignation at the action of violent criminals and their resolve to stand up to those actions, however distasteful that might be.
GC, GSD is short for German Shepherd Dog.
ReplyDeleteSomeguy - apologies for the mis-attribution.
GC, while you may have a right to be anywhere in your home that you wish, there is a duty to avoid using lethal force if that is possible. In legal terms it is the duty to retreat, the concept is that the responsibility to avoid taking a human life if at all possible is more important than your stupid idea that you should confront him (or rarely, her).
It is similar to the premise that you have the right to do as you like with your property, but you don't have the right to own an attractive nuisance without additional security - like fencing, and you don't have the right to set a man trap to injure or kill an intruder. There are lots of legal limits on your property rights, such as having to conform to building codes.
You have just once again demonstrated that you have too little regard for life, and that you are looking for an excuse to shoot someone rather than avoid using lethal violence.
That, on top of the other stupid notions to which you adhere- like the ludicrous idea that a loaded weapon is secure in your home sitting on a table while you sleep --- it is NOT -- or your posing with your finger on a trigger, and many of the other unreasonable statements you make indicate you are a dangerous person, a violent gun incident waiting to happen.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"GC, while you may have a right to be anywhere in your home that you wish, there is a duty to avoid using lethal force if that is possible. In legal terms it is the duty to retreat,"
Depends on where you live. There are 17 states with a "Stand Your Ground" law, meaning you have no legal duty to retreat regardless of where you are and 24 states with a Castle Doctrine whereas you have no legal duty to retreat if you're in your home.
In several of these states, homicide is justified is someone is attempting to break into your home.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteBullshit. Have you heard of the Castle Doctrine? That's the idea that someone who breaks into my home has taken himself out of the bounds of civilized behavior. That gives me all the justification that I need. Why else would a person break in, except to commit a violent act? Breaking in is violence in itself. What more do you need? Now if said person suddenly reforms his ways and surrenders, I'll be happy to hand him alive over to the police, but that's a fleeting possibility.
What's your problem with the idea that anyone who wants to live may feel free not to break into my home?
Speaking of a handgun on my nightstand, where would you have me put it? I suppose that you imagine that those gun fairies of which you spoke will take it and run amok with it, but in the real world, it's not going anywhere unless I'm the one taking it. If someone does break in, do you expect me to open a safe, load my gun, and then find a place to retreat into? That may be possible in your fantasy world, but in reality, not so much.
But here's something to make you shiver: No matter what your opinion of me, I still get to own firearms and carry a handgun. I'm grateful for freedom.
GC writes:Bullshit. Have you heard of the Castle Doctrine? That's the idea that someone who breaks into my home has taken himself out of the bounds of civilized behavior.
ReplyDeleteI appear to be more familiar with Castle Doctrine than you are.
You don't get to execute someone for simply entering your home. Only courts and laws get to define the penalties for breaking societal rules that we call laws.
You utterly fail to understand the actual concepts of Castle Doctrine - which are that you get to defend your life, not execute trespassers, and then only when you have tried to avoid the conflict if at all possible.
You continue on a daily basis to demonstrate that you do not fully or properly understand the crap you spout,or the law - least of all the law - and that you are a truly dangerous person who ought NOT to have a firearm, or for that matter anything more dangerous than a graham cracker with sharp corners.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI loved the "graham cracker with sharp corners" reference -- I don't care what side you are on! (Sorry Greg, that was pretty funny.)
I do want to point out an extremely important legal technicality to everyone on both sides regarding Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. All those doctrines do are remove the Duty To Retreat. They don't give you automatic license to shoot and/or kill people. They give you license to stay where you have a legal right to be and defend yourself with force ... and here is the important part ... up to an including deadly force if a reasonable person would reasonably be in fear of their life.
Let me explain how that works in my state in particular. It is a rebuttable presumption that I am in fear of my life if a person tries to remove me from my home or car. "And what does that mean?" you might be thinking? It means that if I apply lethal force and the prosecutor thinks I was not justified, the prosecutor can still try to convict me of murder, manslaughter, or whatever. However, the prosecutor has the burden of proof in court to prove that a reasonable person would not have been in fear of their life. And they would need compelling evidence to convince a jury of that. Without the rebuttable presumption aspect, I would need compelling evidence to convince a jury that I was in the right.
You should check the precise legal details in your state. If in doubt, don't apply lethal force unless a "reasonable person" had a "legitimate reason" to fear for their life.
So to summarize, Castle Doctrine and Stand You Ground remove the former Legal Duty To Retreat, but you still probably have to reasonably be in fear of you life.
On a practical level regarding Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground, consider these two points:
ReplyDelete(a) Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground would not allow me, a healthy average size/build man in my 40s, to shoot a frail, 80 year old woman with a walker and no weapon. The idea is that a reasonable person of my stature would not be in fear of their life in that circumstance. On the other hand if a 270 pound football player has expressed his intent to harm a 110 pound woman, she has a reasonable fear for her life. Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground would be on her side in that circumstance.
(b) For those "gray areas" -- situations where the victim and aggressor are more equally matched and the aggressor hasn't verbally threatened the victim or doesn't have a visible weapon -- you should try to back up (even though Stand Your Ground says you don't have to) and tell the aggressor to leave you alone. If they proceed, you have gone out of your way to avoid a confrontation at that point and their continued aggressive advance is now a credible (reasonable) threat. At that point, drawing a gun without shooting -- but being prepared to shoot -- will resolve nearly all situations without serious legal risk.
Remember, even though you may have followed all laws on paper to a tee, what really happened and what police and prosecutors say happened could be different. The more legal "safety margin" you give yourself, the better your chances of avoiding a costly legal defense and possible prison time even though you didn't commit a crime.
And the anti's should be mostly happy (even though they would not admit it) with such a course of action.
dog gone said....
ReplyDelete"You don't get to execute someone for simply entering your home."
while we don't use the term execute, one does have the right to use deadly force to prevent the unauthorized entry into a home.
BRIEF VERSION
Oklahoma Statutes Title 21. Chapter 53 Section 1289.25
A. The Legislature recognizes rights.
B. A person.. is presumed to have held a reasonable fear when using deadly force to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had already done so or is kidnapping someone and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C exemptions
1 lawful resident
2 guardians of children
3 if home owner is in act of unlawful activity.
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling .......is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Let me put this in street terms for you. you are presumed to be in fear for your life when you use deadly force if somebody is or did just bust up in your crib or your car or try to snatch somebody up as long as you ain't already breakin the law
it goes on to say that if somebody is bustin up in your crib it is presumed that they doin that to be violent.
The state legislators have already taken the guess work out of protecting yourself.
the whole version can be found here
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782
Capn Crunch,
ReplyDeleteShe didn't post my reply to her Graham cracker comment. So much for free expression.
"Graham cracker with sharp edges," is a good one.
ReplyDeletesomeguy and Greg sound like guys who are incapable of making a grave decision involving life or death, so they PLAN on faulting on the side of "blow the fucker away first." They know that the law, whatever the technical details of it are, will protect them. They'll get away with murder.
I'd trust Capn Crunch a bit more to be judicious.
Say, the sometimes sharp corners of corn tortilla chips have injured my mouth more than once ... suggesting they are way more dangerous than a graham cracker with sharp corners. Can we trust Greg Camp with corn tortilla chips?
ReplyDeleteSorry Greg ... I couldn't resist.
mikeb302000 said...
ReplyDelete"someguy and Greg sound like guys who are incapable of making a grave decision involving life or death..."
I'm quite capable of making a decision, I just rest well at night knowing I won't be at the mercy of an overzealous bleeding heart prosecutor. You act like people that are prepared to defend themselves are eager to take a life but you couldn't be further from the truth.
Capn Crunch,
ReplyDeleteDon't add salsa to those sharp chips, or you'll really get a burn. But to repeat my comment that has yet to appear, with regard to Graham cracker swords, I'll take s'more.
By the way, for those interested in the history, the Graham cracker was invented by a fellow named Graham who believed that spicy food made people more sexually active. This, he felt, was damaging to their health. Thus the bland cracker that doesn't stimulate us too much. Of course, we rebellious Americans insisted on adding chocolate and marshmallows to it. . .
Since Dog Gone likes sources, she can refer to "Prophetess of Health" by Ron Numbers to get the full details. It was published by the University of Tennessee Press, if I recall correctly.
someguy,
You're right, but good luck getting them to acknowledge it.
Someguy is a moron:
ReplyDeleteat the mercy of an overzealous bleeding heart prosecutor
In the criminal justice system,the defence bar are the bleeding hearts who want to see lenience for criminals.
The prosecutors want to see criminals punished to the full extent of the law. Not to mention they usually serve as elected officials in the US.
I should add that self-defence is supposed to be based upon the reasonableness of the action. This is supposed to be something which is determined by the jury, not the defendant.
The fact that someguy says "I'm quite capable of making a decision, I just rest well at night knowing I won't be at the mercy of an overzealous bleeding heart prosecutor" more than confirms mikeb's assertion.
Someguy has no idea of what he is talking about and just hopes that he will be able to get around justice by the newly implemented licence to kill laws.
Someguy writes:I'm quite capable of making a decision, I just rest well at night knowing I won't be at the mercy of an overzealous bleeding heart prosecutor.
ReplyDeleteThat could be argued. I doubt you are capable of making a clear decision if you simply wake up and grab your loaded firearm off the nightstand. That is further compromised if you require corrective lenses for your vision.
You don't allow, among other things, for the difference in how fuzzy-headed and unfocused you are, depending on what stage of sleep you are awaking from; not to mention that no firearm is secure if you are asleep.
You'd rather shoot someone than avoid shooting someone; that, plus the pro-gunners dangerous proclivities for not securely storing their firearms is just part of the problem with your lot generally being far less safe and responsible than you like to imagine you are.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI hear stories about how British subjects have trouble when they act to defend themselves in their own homes, but here in America, if I have to shoot someone who has broken in, the presumption is on my side.
Dog Gone,
I'm still curious to know why you object so much to a handgun on my nightstand while I sleep. Do you imagine that it will shoot itself? Do you imagine that a ninja will slip in silently and take it without my noticing?
But to continue the thought, what good is a firearm that isn't available to me to use? If it's unloaded and locked up, how can it be of any use to me as a weapon? You want guns to be treated as toys or museum pieces. Before you fly into a rage over the word "toys," understand that what you suggest would make guns only useful to someone who is at a range. You don't want them available for self defense.
Laci The Dog said...
ReplyDeleteA bunch of crap that's just going to make this thread longer. Starting with...
"...the defence bar are the bleeding hearts..."
I used to think the same way, and I'm sure there are some atts who try to plea everything. I have found, though, that a lot def atty are actually interested in justice.
"The prosecutors want to see criminals punished .... they usually serve as elected officials in the US."
And how do you think prosecutors get elected? "look how many people I locked up". If prosecutors wanted everyone punished to the fullest extent of the law, then why do they offer plea deals? It's a numbers game.
"This is supposed to be something which is determined by the jury, not the defendant."
If a person protects himself in accordance with the law, why should he have to defend himself to a jury as well? That's why legislators in 30 something states have adopted Castle Doctrine.
"Someguy has no idea of what he is talking about and just hopes that he will be able to get around justice by the newly implemented licence to kill laws."
I know exactly what I'm talking about and that's why you, mikeb and dog gone have yet to be able to correct me on the matter and the best you can do is attack the laws and revert to name calling.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"I doubt......"
Of course you do, because you doubt that anyone possesses the ability to defend themselves without injuring someone else.
Then she says "You'd rather shoot someone than avoid shooting someone"
Nope, contrary to your thinking, I actually hold life as a precious thing.
Greg Camp said...
"someguy,
You're right, but good luck getting them to acknowledge it."
Even when they couldn't prove me wrong about the Castle Doctrine, they wouldn't admit they were wrong, just started calling it a "license to kill law"