News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |
The pro-gun sites are going wild with this one. But at least on TTAG, some of the more honest commenters are questioning the wisdom of shooting through a door and of leaving a 12-year-old home alone with access to a gun.
I say all's well that ends well, but this is certainly not the pro-second-amendment story it's being presented as.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I guess Dog Gone and Joan Peterson would have preferred this child get abducted and raped than have her shoot the bad guy.
ReplyDeleteWhat's that y'all say mikeb? if it saves one child? If it saves one child, teach them how to shoot and defend themselves. Y'all should be able to get behind that, right?
Bill, the idea is that although this story had a happy ending, given these situations of leaving guns around kids unsupervised and shooting at "attackers" through the door more often than not, end badly.
DeleteI'm not familiar with another instance of a child being left home around a firearm that shot an attacker through the door. I am familiar with an instance of children left home with the firearms locked up and the kids getting killed by the attacker, though.
DeleteThis story illustrates why kids should be taught to handle firearms properly.
I'm curious why you put "attackers" in quotes. Do you think this home invader was there for tea and crumpets? Clearly, he knew someone was home and instead of leaving, he pursued this child and stalked her like an opportunistic jackal does to a bunny rabbit. It's a shame she didn't shoot him in the genitals.
Attackers is in quotes because sometimes when people shoot through the door they kill a relative or a cop.
DeleteYou mean those cops that execute no-knock warrants on the wrong house?
DeleteI believe that it is a FELONY in Oklahoma to leave a firearm (or any other object considered to be a weapon, such as a knife) in a location where a minor is capable of obtaining the firearm, provided that said minor used the weapon to commit an offense (I don't believe that the reticulated notion of "self defense" is always a considered a defense to prosecution in Oklahoma) The parents (or whomever left the firearm in such an accessible area) are liable to be found guilty of providing a child with a dangerous weapon, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, reckless endangerment of a minor, and (preferably although unlikely) criminally negligent homicide (of some form), whereas the 12 year old in question may be charged with the unlawful possession of dangerous weapon (unfortunately this is only a misdemeanor).
DeleteIt doesn't matter what the thug intended to do upon entry to the house. Citizens have no right to kill each other. It is also rather disturbing that our society encourages a 12 year old to seek out a firearm and fight an intruder or attacker, rather than to flee or call for help.
E.N., are you insane? This child was being threatened by someone who kidnapped another child before. What the hell is wrong with you? We have a right to self-defense. Do you notice how no one in Oklahoma is talking about charging the girl or her family?
DeleteLOL, E.N. loves some boot lickin'.
DeleteEN, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t must be your motto because you're full of it.
DeleteEN, what are you? Some kind of idiot?
DeleteTell me, what term does the English language use to describe "the Felonious killing of another human being with malice aforethought"
DeleteHad the burglar died as a result of the gunshot wound, the scenario in question, would fulfill every aspect of the described term. As I have stated above, the shooting was felonious. It was certainly an attempt to kill the intruder. The intruder was (most likely) a human being. The retreat into a closet with the firearm, and the discharge of said firearm through the door, with the knowledge that another person stood directly behind the door, demonstrates malice aforethought.
This is the absurdity of our culture, that a child has been (unlawfully) equipped with the means to inflict death onto another person. Instead of being trained (brainwashed) to grab a gun, the child should have been taught to find a nonviolent solution to a dangerous situation, such as retreating out of the domicile with the phone, as opposed to lying in wait with a gun, with the intent to kill the intruder upon the intruder discovering her presence. The response to a home invasion which is propagated by our culture, puts the victims of a burglary at greater risk of personal harm, than they would be if they had fled.
E.N., please. She did retreat into a closet. She was on the phone with 911. And yet the thug continued to pursue. Shooting the thug was not a crime. He was illegally in the girl's home. His intention was clear enough. She shot to defend herself. Had he died, that would have been justified homicide.
DeleteGood for her. The only reason in that case to open the door would have been to line up better on the thug's chest.
ReplyDeleteThere's a point here that we keep telling you, Mikeb. This thug already has a record of kidnapping. Rather than going on about how bad it was for him to get shot, why don't you use your energy to advocate for longer sentences for violent criminals? Someone who will kidnap a mentally disabled child has no business returning to circulation. If you want fewer people to get shot, keep violent thugs off the street.
ReplyDeleteGreg, are you doing this on purpose to piss me off?
Delete"Rather than going on about how bad it was for him to get shot"
Is it you contention that this is a story upon which guidelines for gun use could be drawn? Shooting through a door violates at least one of the 4 Rules. Leaving kids alone with guns causes more harm that it prevents, don't you agree?
Mikeb, I can't help what effect facts and good sense have on you.
DeleteUnlike you, I don't feel the need to create some categorical imperative for every event. This is one case. It sounds like a well run family. If that girl hadn't been able to get the gun, she'd likely have been kidnapped. Look at the thug's record. Instead of remembering how she stood up for herself, if she lived, she'd have memories of being taken away and molested to deal with.
I keep explaining to you that no matter where your sympathies lie, your public positions put you on the wrong side of these stories time and again.
Our society crates legal codes and employs enforcement for such statutes, in order to protect the helpless. There are laws against molestation and abduction, and there are police to enforce those laws.
DeleteBesides, this thug already should have been incarcerated for the other incident involving a (possibly feebleminded) child. Rather than arming ourselves, shouldn't our society be preoccupied with incarcerating dangerous child molesters such as the suspect in this case?
Thanks for repeating my point, E.N. Notice how the system failed here? This guy may have been out on bail awaiting trial on the previous incident, but given the charge, that shouldn't have been allowed without much better supervision. Notice also how the police didn't arrive in time to save the girl? Without that gun, she'd now be a missing person in the hands of a child molester.
DeleteGreg, I was complaining about this piece of bullshit from you.
Delete"Rather than going on about how bad it was for him to get shot"
I did not do that. Did I? Try answering with one word.
Too often, yes you do. But hey, I'm not good at simplistic answers.
DeleteEN, unfortunately, many times kids who complain of molestation are ignored and/or not taken seriously. More often than not, the molesting is done by a "trusted" family member. I know a case where a boy was molested for over two years by a family member before he was finally believed. The pervert confessed and is now serving at least 30 years.
DeleteSure. It's great that we have laws against kidnapping and molesting. And it's great when law enforcement stop a child molester before they kidnap and arrest someone. The reality is that law enforcement pretty much never stops a molester before they molest. That is the problem, law enforcement is reactionary. By definition that means law enforcement is always late to the party. And when they are late to the party, victims are injured or killed.
DeleteCitizens are armed so they can protect themselves from attackers that have the advantage of size, strength, speed, numbers, etc. That is exactly what happened in this case. A 12 year old girl stopped a man from harming her beyond the mental trauma that he already caused to her.
Greg, You have clearly demonstrated your mendacious shitty attitude with this thread. You fail in basic truth telling.
DeleteYou said, "Rather than going on about how bad it was for him to get shot"
I said, "I did not do that. Did I? Try answering with one word."
Your answer: "Too often, yes you do. But hey, I'm not good at simplistic answers."
Now, I ask you again, did I "go on about how bad it was for him to get shot?" Yes or no. If yes, like you said I too often do, show me the quote. If not admit you lied like you often do.
Mikeb, you question the wisdom of what this girl did. You express your doubts about the incident. You say that it's bad that she had access to the gun. What I'm getting at here is that in so many cases of a defensive shooting, you take the side of the criminal. You criticize the good citizen. But you weasel out of taking a position so as to feel good about yourself.
DeleteUnlike you, I'm not lying. I'm drawing a conclusion based on the evidence that you provide. You have yet to identify an actual lie that I've told. Here's another conclusion: You want simplistic answers and immediate judgements on everything related to guns. By contrast, I recognize that the world is more complex.
I don't see any safety problem whatsoever with the girl's actions in this story. There was no doubt that the home invader was turning the door knob on the closet door. Law enforcement wouldn't sneak into the home and silently look for the girl and not tell the 911 dispatcher who was talking to the girl on her phone through the entire ordeal. And her mother surely wouldn't sneak into the home and search silently.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mikeb's concerns about children's access to firearms, every situation is unique and it is the parent's responsibility and duty to parent, teach, instill responsibility, and assess how trustworthy their children are. I am sure some children should not have any possible access to firearms without their parent's direct supervision. And I am certain some children can be responsible with emergency access only to firearms without parental supervision. The important point is that it is up to the children's parents, not the state.
[slow clap]
DeleteMike, how can you go on about women’s rights and choice, but then talk like it is not up to the mother (and/or father) to decide what responsibilities to instill with their children? You recognize that this was one for the “good” column, but say “there is more bad than good”. So what does that mean? She should die so that others may live? Though this family made good choices, that choice should have been taken away from them because of poor choices others have made. Is that what you are saying?
Guns and kids don't mix. Shooting through doors always leaves doubt.
DeleteThese people, like this 12 year old, are called "Hero's" Mike. I know you think people like Ellen, and Kobe are the real hero's, but in the real world, this 12 year old is.
ReplyDeleteWith your liberal idea's and with Nazi gun laws, like you propose, this 12 year old would probably be dead. I'm not sure that matters much to you though. Liberal minds don't really care about people, just about their agenda.
This 12 year old is alive, thanks to the 2nd Amendment. Thank you forefathers and conservative thinkers, for saving this child's life.
2nd Amendment. Get over it!
Tes, this one is alive. But I'd call her lucky more than a hero. She and her mommy did a couple things very wrong. People who make those mistakes usually end up dead or hurt.
Delete