Mother Kills Intruder In Order To Protect Self, Baby

The Second Amendment is often the subject of debate in political forums. Some people agree that the populace should be armed while others disagree.

Here is a story of a mother, alone in her home with her infant child who is the victim of a home invasion. The mother was armed with a shotgun and killed the man who broke into her home.

What are your opinions on the Second Amendment? Do you think citizens should have the right to be armed? What options do you think this mother could have taken other than shooting the intruder?

Just so you'll know, I'm an advocate of the right to bear arms. I believe this mother was fully justified in shooting the intruder.

Here is the story, including the 911 call:

Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911

http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-267...er-home-while-on-phone-with-911-27777235.html

 

BTW, don't miss the fact that her husband had just died of cancer Christmas day.

 

A shotgun isn't an automatic rifle or a Saturday Night Special. Got no problem with people owning shotguns. Id' imagine that in addition to taking down pheasants and ducks and clay pigeons it's also a pretty effective anti-personnel, (if that's the right phrase) weapon within a certain range. Good for her.

 

Let see what else happened just today in the world of guns...

Cops shoot and kill armed eighth-grader in Brownsville, Tex. middle school

Boy was in hallway with pellet gun that looked like real handgun

Police in South Texas shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who brought a pellet gun, which looked like a real handgun, to his middle school, according to local reports.
Cops in Brownsville rushed to Cummings Junior High School about 8 a.m. Wednesday after receiving reports that a student had a weapon, the Brownsville Herald reported.
Officers confronted the armed eighth-grader in a hallway and shot him, authorities said.
The boy was taken to Valley Baptist Medical Center, where he died, a county justice of the peace told the local paper.
His name was not immediately released.
The school was placed on lockdown, and students were being relocated to a nearby high school, the Herald said.
No other injuries were reported.
Investigators haven't determined whether the boy fired his weapon, Brownsville police Detective J.J. Trevino told The Associated Press.
"It's still under investigation, as far as how he came about to bringing the weapon or if he encountered anybody or anything else," Trevino said.
Brownsville is 280 miles south of San Antonio.

 

...... and your point is......?

 

If they're like the cops around here, it doesn't take much to send them reaching for their guns. And using them. You don't even need to be armed. You just need for them to perceive you as being "threatening" and your chances of ending up in the morgue are good to excellent.

 

Are you commenting on the story Moen posted? That kid had a phony gun that looked like a real gun. In another story I read, he pointed the gun at the police officers. What would we have the officers do? Get shot? Allow other people to be shot? Why is he bringing his pellet gun to school?

Anyway, back to the OP... Does anyone here disagree with the mother who used deadly force against the intruder?

 

Not me but then again you will still get the story of the person who goes nuts with a fierarm, this one from the UK a few days ago is a point in question

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-says-father-good-man.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

I simply believe that any instance of a gun saving someone in society is easily off-set by any number of instances of guns causing a great deal of harm in society. An 8th grader with a pellet gun! When do we start killing elementary students because they bring dart guns to show-and-tell?

 

Utah officer killed, 6 others wounded in shootout


Police officers and emergency crew are seen near 3268 Jackson Street in Ogden, Utah where ...

Thu Jan 5, 10:50 AM EST

One officer was killed and five other drug task force members and a suspect were wounded in a gunfight Wednesday evening while serving a search warrant in an Ogden neighborhood, authorities said.
The shots rang out before 9 p.m. Wednesday as law enforcement officers converged at a house on Jackson Avenue, said police spokesman Lt. Tony Fox.
Ogden police said in a statement early Thursday that the agent who died from his wounds was Jared Francom, a seven-year veteran who is survived by his wife and two young children. Five others officers from multiple agencies remained hospitalized with serious to critical injuries. No more information on their conditions was released.
The sole suspect in the drug-related shooting was at a local hospital under guard, with non-life threatening injuries.
No other names have been released.
The shooting occurred as an anti-drug strike team was serving a warrant. The Standard-Examiner in Ogden reported that more police responded upon word of at least one officer shot.
Police blocked off the area from 34th Street and Jackson Avenue to 32nd Street and a SWAT team took positions in that area of Ogden, which is about 35 miles north of Salt Lake City.
Authorities have not released information on how the officers and the suspect were shot. The newspaper reported police eventually surrounded the suspect near a backyard shed. The residence was secured after the arrest, and at 9:45 p.m. police announced there was no longer a threat to the community, the paper reported.
The team serving the search warrant involved officers from the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force. The force's website says the unit is made up of officers from the Weber County Sheriff's Office, local police departments and the federal Drug Enforcement Agency.
Four of the officers were taken to nearby McKay-Dee Hospital. Several off-duty doctors and nurses were called in to help with the situation, according to hospital spokesman Chris Dallin, who said he couldn't provide information on the officers' conditions and didn't know where the suspect was being treated.
Witnesses said they heard three quick pops followed by a two- to three-minute pause, then lots of gunfire.
"We came running outside to see what was going on," Janessa Vanderstappen, who lives nearby, told the Deseret News. "Officers told us to go back in our house."
Vanderstappen said she went back inside, and minutes later heard yelling coming from the backyard. She said she walked onto the back porch to see officers addressing a person hiding in a nearby shed.
"There's cops telling him to `put your hands up, put your hands up,'" she said.
Mat Weinberger, who lives about a half block from the scene, said he first thought the noise was fireworks.
From the porch, he told the Salt Lake Tribune that he could see several police cars parked at a nearby intersection. He also could hear a voice on the police radio shout that an officer was down.
He estimated that between 30 to 40 shots were fired during the shootout.
"Chaotic end to a quiet night," he said.

 

You have to keep in mind that a firearm is simply a tool. It's how the person uses the tool that it becomes either defensive or offensive. If society has a problem with offensive behavior, perhaps that needs to be addressed before it starts attacking the implement. I hope you realize that just by removing the implement you don't control the behavior. An aggressor will use whatever he can to augment his offense. A firearm is an excellent defensive mechanism in cases like these.

 

I think that I have mentioned many times in several threads that a gun is just a tool. Lay it on the ground and ignore it and it will rust and go away eventually and hurt no one. That is a given for any tool. It is only as dangerous or useful as the person using it.

Heck, I don’t know why we just don’t sell heroin, cocaine, marijuana, meth, and every other illegal drug known to man in every local 7-11. These tools are absolutely harmless if you lay them on the ground and ignore them until they waste away. But for some reason we regulate and forbid the use of these tools. Where in the Constitution is it stated that we have to control drugs? But we as a society choose to control harmful drugs because when they fall into the wrong hands people’s lives are destroyed or outright ended. We see the value in keeping drugs restricted to the responsible people that can put them to good use.

When it comes to guns, they are guaranteed by the Constitution but nothing says that we have to give everyone access to any kind of weapon that comes down the pipe. Sensible restrictions to avoid harmful consequences are no different than making drugs illegal. You will never eliminate all gun violence in society as long as there are guns but you can significantly reduce the number and frequency of gun crimes by implementing sensible restrictions and making access to guns more difficult.

 

Iraq War veteran Benjamin Colton Barnes was last stationed at a troubled U.S. Army base notorious for suicides and violence, it emerged today.
The 24-year-old, suspected of killing a Mount Rainier National Park ranger after shooting four people in Seattle, was expelled from Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington two years ago.

Lewis-McChordhas drawn national attention for widespread problems with post-traumatic stress disorder among service members returning from Afghanistan and from Iraq.
View attachment 347

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082110/Mount-Rainier-shooting-Benjamin-Colton-Barnes-stationed-U-S-armys-troubled-base.html#ixzz1ibdGsDeD

 

What kind of "restrictions" do you really think can be implemented to make access to guns more difficult by the criminals? Anything I can think of would mean that 90% of all law biding citizen would turn their guns in and 99% of the criminals with guns would now begin hoarding them. Then, we will have some real fair fights, correct?

 

The liberal response is always to impose more regulation. As long as you're at it, please regulate cars. Make them less accessible to those who make the decision to drive intoxicated. Or to those who choose to drive recklessly. Or to those who choose to use them to run over their husbands (http://www.click2houston.com/news/P...sband/-/1735978/2871106/-/kwsq44/-/index.html). Heck, just outlaw them outright except for responsible people who can put them to good use (police, emergency vehicles, fire trucks, etc.). After all, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.

If we park our cars in empty fields, they'll eventually just rust away. How many lives would we save by doing that?

 

This woman was 18, had 2 kids already, lived in a trailor, her husband died of cancer the week before, and she had to kill someone with a shotgun. MAN! Some peolpe just can't catch a break.

 

I am a liberal (just to the right of Mao) and an anti- war anti-violence pacifist, but also a gun owner and shooter. I like guns, but more importantly, I have a family to defend. I believe that when you take on the raising of a family you have a duty to defend them from any threat, any type of threat. I believe that killing is a sin regardless, but allowing innocents to die by inaction is a greater sin. Sometimes a good man has to bear guilt to prevent disaster. I think that thinking gun control will end crime is like ending avalanches by passing laws against rocks.

 

I suppose it's how you see the glass; half-empty or half-full.

She's 18. She has her youth and, hopefully, a long life ahead of her.

She's living in a trailer. She has a roof over her head and isn't on the street like so many of our fellow citizens.

Her husband died of cancer the week before. Very sad indeed. But, he left her with two beautiful children and perhaps a lifetime of wonderful memories.

She had to kill someone with a shotgun. Extremely unfortunate. But, I bet no one messes with her again without thinking twice.

 

In answer to a earlier question regarding criminals with guns one way to deal with them is a mandatory death sentence for any one caught with a unlicensed firearm no appeal and a quick trial

 

One little problem over here - it is called the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And, not only wouldn't it fly with ACLU, but I doubt it would even go over with the right.