Correct.
Nothing they did would have resulted in the death penalty in a court of law.
OrlanisWorks said:
You know what? I don't feel excited about judging people. I'm kind of done with this for now.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2 Men Use Girl as Human Shield, Father Guns Them Down
- Thread starter CrankyJay
- Start date
- Status
Correct.
Nothing they did would have resulted in the death penalty in a court of law.
You know what? I don't feel excited about judging people. I'm kind of done with this for now.
It's from a far right political website. I'm 50/50 on the whole thing being made up or exaggerated beyond recognition, and 100% chance of it being dishonest.
... and you point is? The dad shouldn't defend himself and his family because the criminal's life is more precious than theirs?
Well if you took two second to click on the yahoo link, you would have seen this link
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_29109617-bc56-534f-82e6-d36ccba40c38.html
which includes the video from the local news, but I guess it's easier to let your agenda guide your judgement rather than the facts
Yup. That's totally fucking it. That's my point that I'm making.
ramuh
Member
Well then. By all means. Lets see if a prosecutor will bring the family to court over this "death". Lets see if the court of law will say that this murder was justified. It wouldn't even make it to trial.
Yeah, whatever. I'm not the one making proclamations about who should live or die. I leave that to the victims.
Then what exactly is your point?
Sarcasm is a dead art.
EDIT:
In case that doesn't make sense to you. Let me spell it out:
Meanwhile, you're so convinced about an absolute stranger's eternal guilt (based on a single, one-sided account) that you feel no shame whatsoever in grinning about a fellow human being executed on the spot with no trial.
Dragonborn
Member
Good for the father. He did what needed to be done
You are right, I don't get it at all.
1. It wasn't an execution. It was self defense. It would have been an execution if the father killed the wounded man.
2. Self defense isn't about guilt or trial. It's about self preservation.
3. No one is grinning, including the father.
I'm not sure how you think we establish guilt and have a trial during a home invasion. I am really curious what action you think the father should have taken.
not psycho
Member
There is a real difference between self defense and "vengeance" or "executed." "Eternal guilt" has precisely nothing to do with self defense. It's not a difference in name only, so when you use those words instead of "self defense" you are not merely being loose with language. You are making a factual claim that it was not self defense.
How did you come to that conclusion? Have you been convinced that the whole thing is made up, or do you not believe that the targets of an armed home invasion have a right to defend themselves?
Home invasions are serious business when its just them breaking in. The fact they took the daughter hostage then proceeded with the home invasion makes it that much more serious.
I am glad some people live in a fantasy world where you can talk someone down or just hope for the best but in cases like this the likely outcome is mother and daughter raped and the father/husband killed if not all 3.
I am glad the Dad was a good shot and its likely since they saw the initial grabbing of the daughter they could position themselves for when the intruders came in. I know many Anti-gun people like to push the idea that all gun owners are just looking for the chance to gun down human beings but that is not true at all.
I am glad some people live in a fantasy world where you can talk someone down or just hope for the best but in cases like this the likely outcome is mother and daughter raped and the father/husband killed if not all 3.
I am glad the Dad was a good shot and its likely since they saw the initial grabbing of the daughter they could position themselves for when the intruders came in. I know many Anti-gun people like to push the idea that all gun owners are just looking for the chance to gun down human beings but that is not true at all.
Mashin Haters
Member
this is what i thought of. No fucks given
Unless they have a video of the incident itself, they're still just re-reporting the original story. Since it's Foxnews and since it still sounds like NRA fanfiction I'm still calling BS. At the very least high exaggerated for effect.
Winter John
Member
My parents own guns and I'm glad they do. They live in a very isolated area and if there was any trouble they would not be able to get help. They don't like having guns in the house, but I hate to think what they would do if some criminals targetted them and they had no way of defending themselves.
Think this through.
Do you?
A: drag her along like a child behind your back.
B: Carry her over your shoulder like a large load of laundry
C: Restrain her outside the home with a gag over her mouth
D: Restrain her in front of you while you see who else is in the house
This is why he correctly called you out on victim blaming.
You are saying right there that it's the parent's fault for owning guns that the criminals used the optimal method to restrain the daughter.
And this is the point where I stop talking to you. You should reflect on your lack of perspective.
Or someone across the street.
I don't know about that. I mean, even if it was to defend his family, he still had to kill someone. That will definitely be weighing in his mind.
Let's not kid ourselves here; no one is going to be throwing parties. The father feels remorseful had he had to resort to such an extreme level.
If you understood something about guns and their use, you'd know that a large portion of sporting and hunting weapons are semi-automatic. There are no "silencers", there are suppressors. Suppressors are safety equipment that reduce noise pollution at shooting ranges (and are sometimes even required at a specific range), protect both human and dog hearing in hunting use, and can also improve a gun's usability e.g. by reducing recoil and muzzle blast. They haven't been regulated at all where I live, nor should they be. "High caliber sniper rifles" are irrelevant for public safety - criminals do not need or use them - and in their practical capabilities they are largely equivalent to powerful, high quality hunting rifles.
Basic target shooting, shooting sports like IPSC shooting, hunting large birds and small-to-midsize mammals. I own one much like it and it's good for these uses. It would also be near perfect defensive weapon for the situation in the thread's OP, much safer than a pistol. Rifles in general allow accurate shot placement, and the specific sight configuration shown is geared for good situational awareness and quick shots at short to mid range.What's exactly the use the average Joe can give to a weapon like this?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
@ I'm a Scandinavian, socialist so growing up I've always been terrified by Americans spewing gun rights. In recent years however, I think the argument that really made me pause however, is seeing statistics from other nations who have legal guns but very few deaths.
That's why I agree with Joe Rogan on this:
The biggest problem is people who fall through the system. Lack of health care, lack of help for everyone breeds many more desperate people. I think it's just math. Take away all the food, water and electricity, and even places like Sweden will have total Anarchy and systematic killing of it's own population within long just to survive.
The evil is within all of us if pushed. But with these many guns in circulation in America (and South America) an all-out guns ban will never happen. It's just part of the history now. But I think you can reduce the gun related deaths significantly if you pick up the worst-off people in society.
But it sounds like there are so many slums in America now that, that task is nearly impossible. It's hard to imagine there are places now that even cops won't go into because of crime.
That's why I agree with Joe Rogan on this:
The biggest problem is people who fall through the system. Lack of health care, lack of help for everyone breeds many more desperate people. I think it's just math. Take away all the food, water and electricity, and even places like Sweden will have total Anarchy and systematic killing of it's own population within long just to survive.
The evil is within all of us if pushed. But with these many guns in circulation in America (and South America) an all-out guns ban will never happen. It's just part of the history now. But I think you can reduce the gun related deaths significantly if you pick up the worst-off people in society.
But it sounds like there are so many slums in America now that, that task is nearly impossible. It's hard to imagine there are places now that even cops won't go into because of crime.
You are right, it's not true because it doesn't fit your reality. Its a local news channel, I'm sure they fell for this elaborate NRA ruse.
.... America?
DoktorEvil
Banned
American healthcare has to fundamentally change to reflect the rise of mental illness related shootings, but it won't, not if parent's groups have any say in the matter.
Deified Data
Banned
The whole "How can I shoot this guy if he has a hostage" trope has always bothered me. If you have a clean shot why not take it? Dude must have been a crackshot if he took out both guys before they were able to hurt his daughter.
DoktorEvil
Banned
The father nailed the second guy in his thighs.
Apparently that's the high skills of a great shooter; the ability to paint your targets and hit them.
Deified Data
Banned
Eh, I don't know what to say to that - did this father protecting his daughter not meet your stringent level of approval? Glad the family's alright.
Holy shit, I got wasted last night. Anyway...
I think it's much more likely that they grabbed the girl because they felt threatened by the gun toting homeowners. The whole home invaders = serial rapists thing is something out of Hollywood.
I think it's much more likely that they grabbed the girl because they felt threatened by the gun toting homeowners. The whole home invaders = serial rapists thing is something out of Hollywood.
Zoe
Member
So you're calling the family liars?
Deified Data
Banned
What do you base that on?
DoktorEvil
Banned
I'm only responding to your comment.
"Dude must have been a crackshot if he took out both guys before they were able to hurt his daughter"
He killed the first one and injured the second attacker.
Someone else in the thread pointed it out to me how difficult is it to do that and how it takes a skilled marksman to do that, and I thought that would've answered your comment.
What would they be using her as a shield for otherwise?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I think it will even have to change in Scandinavia. Our politician fear that we will go the way of Japan. As more and more people live longer, we might reach a point were the working class can't pay for all the elderly. The truth is, that it's incredible expensive to take care of peoples health needs, and it's very difficult to justify costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars when its lifestyle induced diseases. Smoking, drinking, over eating. It put's a massive strain on the infrastructure, while other people can't get a fair chance at life because they were born with a sickness that couldn't be prevented.
I have no idea how anyone can solve this conundrum.
Deified Data
Banned
Why wouldn't they?
Zoe
Member
People explained that to you already last night.
RoninChaos
Member
America, as a nation, feels that only people with money should have health care. This "mental health" problem isn't going away any time soon.
Minister of the Dog
Member
It's true I'm not very savvy about the finer details of guns. I should've used broader terms, e.g. high rate of fire, high ammo capacity.
Oxford Dictionary
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
If gun aficionados just dislike the term because it might be misguiding in name (not in definition) well, there's no way I could've known. We both still know what I was talking about, the term is recognized by the use I gave to it, so the correction was unnecessary.
Aren't earmuffs enough for a shooting range? Anyway, that seems like a fair use of a silencer. Keep those there and do not allow people to take them home. I'll concede further. I'll concede the right to own silencers for hunting weapons. What's the reason for a particular individual to own a handgun silencer? And an assault rifle silencer?
You can use an assault rifle as a hunting weapon if you wish, but it doesn't seem like the main use for an assault rifle, does it? Does a hunter need up to 45 rounds per minute? There's an article by a self proclaimed gun supporter, written after yet another shooting with a rifle like the one in the pic, that states otherwise as for the effectiveness of that rifle for hunting and home protection. I've not experience either way so I will leave it at that.
Most countries limit the kind of weapons a person can own, the number of weapons, most don't allow silencers (not even all of the U.S. states allow silencers), and even the ammount of ammo that a person can buy (e.g. France).
I'm sure you enjoy having those guns, shooting them and doing target shooting. I'd gladly prevent you and everyone else from enjoying that hobby if it meant a drastic drop in homicides by fire weapon as it happened in Australia after the gun ban laws. Perhaps you don't realize that a drop of 5 killed per 100k to 1 killed per 100k could mean you and your family, or your neighbours, or my family and I, get to live.
jakonovski
Member
Listen to yourself. You're smug about the fact that insanely brutal gun crime happens quite often.
Not really, the actual shooting task could have been easy. However, the father was alert enough in the moment to notice something is going on, and able to shift from "lounging at home" mode to decisive action fast enough. Those are big accomplishments, and most failed instances of self defense are probably failed at that stage.
That the criminals did not hurt the daughter during the shooting is pretty much the expected outcome, regardless of whether they had the physical ability to do so. When they were suddenly being shot at, harming the daughter would have been the last thing on their mind vs. the instinctive actions of fleeing/taking cover/fighting the threat. They had no rational reason to do so either.
dapperbandit
Banned
This happened at 11PM at night apparently. The two men grabbed the girl as she was getting something out of the car which was parked on the street. They held a gun to her head and approached the house.
They already had a gun to her head before anything else happened. I don't know where you get this idea that these two
Seriously, are you really treating the home invaders as the victims in this story?
No I'm not doing that, but I got the other stuff wrong, so thanks for the tl;dr.
You don't need a conspiracy for a news story to be ginned up for ratings. Unscrupulous reporters will do that anyways. My point it just doesn't sound like anything that could have actually happened.
Yea, "silencer" is not incorrect, just misleading. But especially when you are arguing for something to be banned, it wouldn't hurt to use the term that is not misleading.
Instead of making individual concessions for specific uses that you perceive to be reasonable, you should maybe start from explaining why any sort of suppressor should be regulated at all. Other than in movies, they are not widely used by criminals, indicating they have little value for criminals. Suppressors for fixed-barrel guns are basically just hollow cylinders and it's impossible to stop anyone from making one. I have personally used a novelty suppressor that consisted of a $20 threaded attachment and an empty plastic soda bottle screwed at the end of the pistol barrel. It worked decently for the first shot, after which you could screw in another bottle to restore the effect.
For your information, suppressors are interchangeable between fixed-barrel guns of roughly same caliber. One suppressor will work both with a low-power .22 rifle and a .22 handgun. Another, sturdier suppressor will work both on a bolt-action bird rifle and my AR, and would also work with an assault rifle (which an AR is not). High-powered rifles and pistols are not quiet even with a suppressor; the actual effect of suppressing most rifles is to reduce the noise to somewhere around 130-140dB where a single shot should no longer cause permanent hearing damage. The AR's usual .223 caliber is actually particularly ill-suited for more quiet operation.
Those parts of the article are sloppy opinion writing rather than reporting. His attempt at tackling defensive use is based just on his own gut feeling with zero expertise backing it, and his gut feeling is wrong. Maybe he should have actually read the sources he links to; the one discussing frangible ammo is obviously written by someone with a clue who also has a few basic pro/con things to say about rifles in home defense. The section on hunting is even worse - pure ad hominem. There's not a single actual reason in there why ARs would be poor guns for hunting. He just quotes some anonymous forum guy whose opinion is that people who use ARs for hunting are weirdos. The argument "an AR is a poor choice for purpose X because it has this additional performance that isn't strictly necessary for X" is absurd - in Wolfgang Pauli's words, "it's not even wrong!".
But it did happen, and it has been corroborated by multiple sources. Just cause you think it can't happened doesn't mean shit.
Just for your benefit:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_29109617-bc56-534f-82e6-d36ccba40c38.html
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/1-killed-1-injured-in-south-St-Louis-shooting-262502461.html
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/06/10/police-investigate-fatal-shooting-in-bevo-mill/
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_29109617-bc56-534f-82e6-d36ccba40c38.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-gunpoint-attempted-robbery-article-1.1826739
http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/v...c0895b1cab0c/MO--Home-Invasion-Fatal-Shooting
http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-girl-human-shield-until-her-father-040007545.html
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/da...gunpoint_dad_shoots_them_kills_one_police.php
http://kplr11.com/2014/06/10/exclus...ho-allegedly-put-a-gun-to-his-daughters-head/
http://wgntv.com/2014/06/10/cops-1-dead-after-dad-mom-fire-at-gunmen-confronting-teen-daughter/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/11/gun-toting-mom-dad-duo-square-daughters-abductors-/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/two-thugs-took-daughter-hostage-parents-responded-perfectly/
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/news/f...meowners-shoot-armed-home-invaders-4442.shtml
It's all made up because it doesn't align with your worldview.
d'artagnan
Member
Whilst I could be dismissive and suggest that your Watch Dogs tag should be "Believes the Daily Mail might actually be a newspaper" in this instance I'll bite and play... What rights do you believe that 'criminals' appear to have that you don't?
Bear in mind that I've been complainer, accused and witness (both defence and prosecution) in various criminal matters so if you want to go down the usual route of whining that 'criminals' are treated better than 'victims' by the criminal justice system then I can kerb-stomp you with actual experience of the criminal justice system from all the sides that can be experienced by someone who isn't a legal professional (hint: anyone who thinks that 'criminals' are treated better than 'victims' has never been accused of a crime).
Its the same source being re-reported over and over again by different media groups. It's not like every group did their own investigative report.
And I never claimed it's completely made up, rather it has been exaggerated to sell a story. It would not surprise me if the family was never in any danger. Certainly, the action movie part of the story falls short of plausibility.
skeebs
Member
And those WMDs are still hiding in some bunker in Syria right?
Sorry, reality doesn't work like that. It's more likely the story was a huge exaggeration than real.
- Status