Mother kills intruder with shot gun!!!

[neoflex]

Just saw this earlier this morning. Good to see the media shed a somewhat positive light on a gun owner.
Tom, I would love to hear your thoughts given your experience on the job especially given the years you have on the job and what you see that the rest of us may have missed. I'm wondering if it has to do with the mention of the possible stalker tied with the slight sense of cockiness and lack of emotion after taking another persons life. Now you have me thinking maybe there was a sour relationship there. I am honestly curious and intrigued and am by no means trying to be a smart@ss and stir the pot. Investigation stories about these types of situations have always peaked my interest.

[mkarnold1]

Originally Posted by replicant_argent

If she isn't ready to use it, she shouldn't have it, IMHO. You wouldn't want your wife to be clubbed and then shot with her own shotgun, now would you? Not that there wouldn't be a plethora of other weapons in arms reach, but being a paper tiger is no solution when great bodily harm or death is involved. At CQB distance, she will most likely have lost the battle at that point if she is unwilling to pull the trigger to negate the threat.


It is always a good thing to look at defensive strategies as a fluid learning experience.

Heard and understood, but she would not have the gun loaded. She doesn't know how to shoot so there is no way I would want her discharging a loaded firearm in our home with the kids there. Also, an unloaded firearm is a very good weapon for a person who is at a disadvantage in a fight, because of the unease and uncertainty it may cause in the assailant. The walnut stock of a Winchester 1300 is no "paper tiger", it will do more damage than anything else in the house.

[neoflex]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I am not speculating as to a reason with the short amount of interviews I have seen. But apparently she knew her attacker.

I have been pretty dead on when it comes to parents coming on TV, hearbroken about their missing child....as to which ones are truly heartbroken, and which ones murdered their own child and dumped them in a creek.

My gut tells me there is more to this story than has come out so far, but it doesn't sound like the local authorities are going to push it. No matter, I am relatively sure the guy she shot was a sh!tbag either way.

Disregard my earlier post as you answered it while I was typing.

I don't know the circumstances of course but either way they were trying to enter her home illegally and against her will and in OK once they enter against your will they are fair game whether you know who it is or not. I know that here in NC you don't even have to wait for them to make it in, if there is someone trying to break in and you believe they are intent on doing harm you can shoot them right through the door. Obviously a good idea to be sure but quit frankly if I know someone is up to no good and tell them there is a gun waiting for them on the other side and they keep trying to get in I'd just as soon not have the mess in my house and present the Darwin Award outside. If people want to act like animals I have no problem with treating them like animals, I wouldn't let a rabid dog in either.

It may seem harsh but I for one am very tired of good honest people having to live on lock down to protect themselves from social trash. Maybe it's about time for the criminals to know a little fear. I don't advocate vigilante justice but a person should have the right to defend their property and more importantly loved ones without fear of prosecution.

[ApexAZ]

The family of the intruder will probably sue her now. In my CCW class, they said that if you need to kill someone in self defense, you should assume you'll need approximately $100,000 for litigation expenses.

Basically, don't kill someone unless you're absolutely certain you have to in order to survive.

[replicant_argent]

Originally Posted by mkarnold1

Heard and understood, but she would not have the gun loaded. She doesn't know how to shoot so there is no way I would want her discharging a loaded firearm in our home with the kids there. Also, an unloaded firearm is a very good weapon for a person who is at a disadvantage in a fight, because of the unease and uncertainty it may cause in the assailant. The walnut stock of a Winchester 1300 is no "paper tiger", it will do more damage than anything else in the house.

And if the assailant has a loaded weapon, in opposition to a useless (at distance) weapon, the assailant may be quite a bit more likely to shoot first when confronted with that very possible threat. Negation or defusing of the situation before it becomes hand to hand is infinitely favorable to "hoping your wife can use it as a club as a last resort." A baseball bat might be a better choice, I suppose in that case.

I do not mean any disrespect in any way, but as someone who views the presence of a firearm as a responsibility, and when presented in a confrontation, I am mindful that hesitation may cause either escalation, loss of initiative, or an instantly reduced safety zone, an attacker, if armed with a firearm, may shoot at the earliest opportunity if threatened with a firearm themselves.

It's a glass half empty supposition, I suppose, and I am no tactician, but looking at the lowest common denominator is necessary, I think, especially with criminals.

[replicant_argent]

Originally Posted by icehog3

While I completely support the right to defend one's home from intrusion by any means necessary, it seems to me there is more to this specific story than meets the eye.

Call me skeptical....or suspicious...but I am not taking this girl's story at face value.

A thought or two along those lines had crossed my mind as well, Tom.

[ApexAZ]

Originally Posted by Dr Voss

I know that here in NC you don't even have to wait for them to make it in, if there is someone trying to break in and you believe they are intent on doing harm you can shoot them right through the door. Obviously a good idea to be sure but quit frankly if I know someone is up to no good and tell them there is a gun waiting for them on the other side and they keep trying to get in I'd just as soon not have the mess in my house and present the Darwin Award outside.

Honestly, if someone is trying to break in and I have time to escape, I would try to escape. Shooting someone dead in the yard is just too much risk. Replacing the things that got stolen or damaged would cost far less in the long run.

If you have no where to go and you're certain they have a weapon and intend to harm you, then that's another matter entirely.

[pektel]

Originally Posted by Dr Voss

I don't know the circumstances of course but either way they were trying to enter her home illegally and against her will and in OK once they enter against your will they are fair game whether you know who it is or not. I know that here in NC you don't even have to wait for them to make it in, if there is someone trying to break in and you believe they are intent on doing harm you can shoot them right through the door. Obviously a good idea to be sure but quit frankly if I know someone is up to no good and tell them there is a gun waiting for them on the other side and they keep trying to get in I'd just as soon not have the mess in my house and present the Darwin Award outside. If people want to act like animals I have no problem with treating them like animals, I wouldn't let a rabid dog in either.

It may seem harsh but I for one am very tired of good honest people having to live on lock down to protect themselves from social trash. Maybe it's about time for the criminals to know a little fear. I don't advocate vigilante justice but a person should have the right to defend their property and more importantly loved ones without fear of prosecution.

This.

[mkarnold1]

Originally Posted by replicant_argent

And if the assailant has a loaded weapon, in opposition to a useless (at distance) weapon, the assailant may be quite a bit more likely to shoot first when confronted with that very possible threat. Negation or defusing of the situation before it becomes hand to hand is infinitely favorable to "hoping your wife can use it as a club as a last resort." A baseball bat might be a better choice, I suppose in that case.

I do not mean any disrespect in any way, but as someone who views the presence of a firearm as a responsibility, and when presented in a confrontation, I am mindful that hesitation may cause either escalation, loss of initiative, or an instantly reduced safety zone, an attacker, if armed with a firearm, may shoot at the earliest opportunity if threatened with a firearm themselves.

It's a glass half empty supposition, I suppose, and I am no tactician, but looking at the lowest common denominator is necessary, I think, especially with criminals.

Out in a rural area of MN, I am making an assumption that an intruder would not be carrying a firearm. Given the scenario of an intruder with a gun, I would have to agree with you.

[replicant_argent]

I am going to assume anyone insane enough to try to break into my house, wherever it is, is armed, until witnessed as otherwise.

[pektel]

Originally Posted by mkarnold1

Out in a rural area of MN, I am making an assumption that an intruder would not be carrying a firearm. Given the scenario of an intruder with a gun, I would have to agree with you.

I'm in rural Northern MN. Everyone has guns here. Except me. I only have a Browning 30-06 for deer hunting. No home defense weapon. Except a rather sharp hunting knife that I keep wedged between the bed frame and mattress. I'm a very light sleeper (the train whistle 2 miles away through trees wakes me up), and would have time to get a jump on whoever would be trying to enter my home.

Almost picked up a biometric safe, and a S&W Sigma 40 cal with laser sight around Christmas, but the paperwork would've taken too long for me to purchase the gun while it was on sale.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by ApexAZ

Honestly, if someone is trying to break in and I have time to escape, I would try to escape. Shooting someone dead in the yard is just too much risk. Replacing the things that got stolen or damaged would cost far less in the long run.

If you have no where to go and you're certain they have a weapon and intend to harm you, then that's another matter entirely.

My home is exactly where I escape to.

I've had my home broken into twice and my car robbed twice. I had a vehicle stolen from my yard. The cars and driveway don't mean much, it didn't come with the sense of violation that the house being robbed did.
Our home was rural and non-descript, but apparently was inviting enough for someone to risk their life. No one was home during either break-in.

The thought of me running out the back door has honestly never even entered my mind. If someone enters this house, they will meet whichever weapon I find first. If they are armed, I hope they get time to get a quick prayer off.
People aren't stupid. They've balanced the risk before climbing in a window. With each robbery they get bolder and their odds of escaping unharmed diminish. They know that.
There's a little verse that's been in print for a few thousand years that says "...such is the end of all who go after ill-gotten gain; it takes away the lives of those who get it." (Proverbs 1:10-19)
There's not an individual in the world who doesn't innately know the essense of that passage, and there's nothing on the other side of a window that can't be gained by asking the help of others.

There aren't a lot of things I won't give ground on to keep peace, but protecting my home is one of them.

I'm with Tom on my initial impression, but if it's all on a 21 minute 911 call then the rest of the story should come out. Or not.

[elderboy02]

Originally Posted by ApexAZ

The family of the intruder will probably sue her now. In my CCW class, they said that if you need to kill someone in self defense, you should assume you'll need approximately $100,000 for litigation expenses.

Basically, don't kill someone unless you're absolutely certain you have to in order to survive.

I love Ohio. We have the Castle Doctrine. The scumbags family can't sue you if you shoot them.

[Taki]

Originally Posted by ApexAZ

The family of the intruder will probably sue her now. In my CCW class, they said that if you need to kill someone in self defense, you should assume you'll need approximately $100,000 for litigation expenses.

Basically, don't kill someone unless you're absolutely certain you have to in order to survive.

Thats absolutely ridiculous!!! Although very true...

[SNKBYT]

Tom makes a good point and for the record I would have no problem shooting a BG breaking into my house while I'm home

[357]

Originally Posted by icehog3

While I completely support the right to defend one's home from intrusion by any means necessary, it seems to me there is more to this specific story than meets the eye.

Call me skeptical....or suspicious...but I am not taking this girl's story at face value.

I've heard she was on the phone for a long time and even barricaded the door. Pure rumor as I haven't read it anywhere, but who knows.

The thing I thought that was strange was the picture they showed of her husband. She's 18 and has an infant. The picture of her late husband looked to be a senior picture taken in the early 70s. That would make her husband around 50+ years old. Not illegal, but possibly given the human gestation period of 9 months.

Originally Posted by ApexAZ

The family of the intruder will probably sue her now. In my CCW class, they said that if you need to kill someone in self defense, you should assume you'll need approximately $100,000 for litigation expenses.

Basically, don't kill someone unless you're absolutely certain you have to in order to survive.

First, I'm not an attorney. Second, IMO, too many CCW instructers are baselessly scaring the crap out of their pupils. My BIL instructor in Michigan told him the same thing. Both yours and his are wrong.

I found this, to refure your instructor's assertion:
http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedS...s.asp?Title=13

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

See 13-413 which was ammended by this (State) Senate Bill 1145
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/47leg/2r/bills/sb1145s.pdf

30 13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct; costs
31 A. No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for
32 engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this
33 chapter.
34 B. THE COURT SHALL AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, COMPENSATION
35 FOR LOST INCOME AND ALL EXPENSES INCURRED BY A DEFENDANT IN THE DEFENSE OF
36 ANY CIVIL ACTION IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS IMMUNE FROM
37 PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A.
38 Sec. 4. Title 13, chapter 4, Arizona

So, while they can sue you if some whack job civil judge allows the case to be opened, you can even be compensated by the state for your attorney fees if you can prove you're immune according to the 13-413 statute.

Also, according to this link AZ has a strong castle doctrine law that extends to vehicles, hotel rooms, and includes a right to stand your ground (aka no legal requirement to flee before using lethal force).
http://askville.amazon.com/states-Ma...estId=36523919


And, this link states AZ no longer even requires a permit to carry concealed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law...state)#Arizona

[replicant_argent]

Originally Posted by 357

The thing I thought that was strange was the picture they showed of her husband. She's 18 and has an infant. The picture of her late husband looked to be a senior picture taken in the early 70s.

I noted that to my wife as well this morning. VERY odd. Glad I wasn't the only one to see that as something odd.

[ApexAZ]

We are a very gun friendly state. Still, it could be a huge headache that probably isn't worth the hassle for me if I could reasonably get away.

This is especially true if the perp is not even inside my home. Why should I take a risk of shooting at them when I could get away. Why put my neighbors at risk? Ive never had to shoot at someone under pressure. Might be that i could avoid civil litigation, but I most certainly face both criminal AND civil litigation if i somehow shot any if rhe children who live next door on either side of my home and across the street. This is just my own personal opinion on what I would do. I respect thy others may feel differently and have varying degrees of the amount of risk they are willing to take. But there IS some risk involved whenever the choice is made to shoot a gun in a populated area. Its up to the individual to decide if it is really worth it.